- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 07:30:46 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, web API <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:02:42 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> > wrote: >> On Mar 06, 2007, at 02:49, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> This would require a change in XHR to adopt the Progress Events >>> spec, but would considerably simplify Progress Events. Thoughts? >> >> This is a typical issue with specs that correlate. I'd say that >> since both specs are controlled by the same WG, and since adding >> that field to XHR in the the XHR spec doesn't make any sense >> unless Progress Events are supported, it's fine to extend the XHR >> interface from within the Progress Events spec. I'll admit I don't >> have a strong opinion either way though, I just thought I'd bring >> it up as an option. > > I think it would be way better to define how they interact in XHR2, > actually. Agreed. Ultimately, it would be good for all specifications with elements or objects that are potential sources of progress events to document how they apply. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 15:31:32 UTC