Re: Progress event spec

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Jim Ley wrote:
> "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
> > >
> > >    MUST fire again at the end, even if that is zero bytes
> > 
> > ...so that progress bars can be easily guarenteed to reach the 100% 
> > mark, which is important for usability.
> 
> Using onload is sensible for that, there is no point to require an extra 
> event which breaks backwards compatibility.

Could you elaborate on this backwards compatibility problem?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 28 January 2007 03:50:58 UTC