- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:31:50 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > We have previously discussed a stalled event, in the context of > suggested timing for producing progress events. We decided not to set a > specific timing, because the use cases vary a lot and so the appropriate > timing of progress events does too. So we could add the event directly > to this spec, as a convenience. > > I think the suspend event would be useful and am inclined to add it. > Should there be an unsuspend event, or is it enough to just emit a new > progress event signifying taht something started again? And do others > think this is a useful addition or just extra work? I don't think 'unsuspend' is that useful given that you can just detect 'progress'. I do think that including all the events specs invent that use ProgressEvents into the progress spec makes sense, since that way other specs will reuse them. I still don't think ProgressEvents should really have (nor really can have) much in the way of normative text, so I don't think that it's really complicated to add events. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 18:32:27 UTC