- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, web API <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > > > I think the event 'progressError' should be 'error' for backwards > > compatibility. > > > > I think the event 'progressCanceled' should be 'abort' for backwards > > compatibility. > > > > I think the event 'progressComplete' should be 'load' for backwards > > compatibility'. > > All these are fine by me. > > > The spec doesn't say how to decide whether to fire 'error' or 'abort'. > > > > The spec implies that 'error' and 'abort' are not mutually exclusive > > with 'load'. > > The spec doesn't mention 'error' or 'abort', but the ways to arrive at > various end states are indeed not clearly distinguished. Sorry, s/error/progressError/, s/abort/progressCanceled/, and s/load/progressComplete/ in the above comments; I was assuming the earlier changes were accepted by the time I got to that comment. :-) > > The spec says that the events must be cancelable but does not define > > their default action. > > Right. Do you have a suggestion for a default action? Is there a reason > we need one for everybody to implement? If there isn't one, it should just say so. > > The following requirement both abuses RFC2119 terminology and makes no > > sense from a conformance point of view: "This method may only be > > called before the progress event has been dispatched via the > > dispatchEvent method, though it may be called multiple times during > > that phase if necessary." > > Could you explain what you mean by "makes no sense"? "may only" is not RFC2119-compatible grammar. It also doesn't really make much sense to give conformance requirments on when a method call can be called. It's not formally checkable, and we have to define what happens when the requirement is violated anyway. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 19:17:31 UTC