Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:08:56 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. Not sure if that is what you want to do before or after  
>>> getting the
>>> load/error/abort event though?
>>>
>>> I should mention that I'm not particularly married to having things  
>>> one way
>>> or another. But I think we should have reasons for choosing.
>>>
>>  Agree. Anyone who has another use case for loadend, please post up.
>
> I was also wondering why in your use case it made sense to fire loadend  
> before load/error/abort? I.e. what would you be doing in those events  
> such that you want the progress bar hidden at that point.
>
> Though I do agree that it makes sense to say "i'm done" before "here's  
> the data" (or "it failed").

It seems to me that the order is not that significant - either you are  
trapping the specific end cases ("I'm done" / "It failed"), or you don't  
really care about them so you use the convenience loadend event, e.g. to  
remove your progress bar.

Given that whichever comes first will fire whichever comes second, I think  
the symmetry is as good an argument as any for ordering, so I am inclined  
to leave what we have now. Garrett, do you think that is really a wrong  
decision (and if so do others agree we should change it back)?

(I'm not very strongly attached to either order - this is partially about  
trying to find what seems intuitive because that leads to fewer mistakes,  
and partly about trying to avoid me messing with the spec which also leads  
to fewer mistakes ;) )

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 15:06:43 UTC