- From: Gorm Haug Eriksen <gormer@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:25:38 +0200
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Hi Boris, On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:51:03 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > At the moment, Gecko allows adding a single "onprogress" > DOMEventListener that's notified of download progress. > > We would like to make two changes to the progress event setup: > > 1) Allow adding progress event listeners via addEventListener, not just > via > setting the onprogress property. The event name would be > "progress". This sounds like a good idea. Btw, I found two strange behaviours while looking at it now. It seems like the onprogress event is one cycle before responseText.length. Also, strange things seems to happen if the Content-Length header is missing. Opera will probably wait until this group has made an recommendation because the same behaviour is possible to implement without the onprogress event (by checking the Content-Length header and watching the length of responseText as it progress). > 2) Allow adding upload progress event listeners via addEventListener. > The > event name would be "uploadprogress". > > The timeline for this would be to make the change in development builds > in the next several weeks and to ship it hopefully early next year. > > Does this seem acceptable? If not, are there counter-proposals? I would wait until all vendors get a chance to review a proposal in public. The people that need this behaviour are capable of implementing it today using server side scripting. Is this acceptable? Cheers, - Gorm Eriksen
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 15:25:50 UTC