- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:45:01 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Apr 23, 2006, at 23:26, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> SVG could http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-LS/load-save.html#LS-
> LSParser
> consider compatible with existing specifications also...
Weren't you at the meeting where D3LS was deemed "unofficially
obsolete"? ;)
More seriously, I think you meant LSProgressEvent no? It has various
issues, some of which being that it is defined in a way that assumes
XML by discussing external entities, and is also defined in terms of
parsing and not data acquisition. None of this makes much sense for
arbitrary content. It would also have to be subsetted to not bring in
LSInput, by which point we would be left with two fields, still tied
to XML, and one of which, just to make things better, is poorly named.
If compatibility with D3LS was a goal, we'd have to also drop large
parts of XHR, and also reuse LSLoadEvent.
At the f2f we did actually consider asking the community at large if
they would object to simply rescinding that document, not necessarily
because it's technically bad (though it does have its shortcomings)
but simply because it has been overtaken by events. We decided to not
do so because it seemed simpler to not attract attention to it.
> I note that an event name 'progress' in no namespace and no prefix is
> likely to clash with W3C's work on XHR, so I don't think it would be a
> good idea to give no advise on this.
That's why I was asking Boris who he was asking and what he was
asking for.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Sunday, 23 April 2006 21:44:39 UTC