- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:19:49 +0100
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:44:17 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > Is there a reason why the spec says to not send progress events > (upload and download) during synchronous requests, while still saying > that readystatechange events should be fired? > > I guess it can be argued that progress events (especially the load > event) is less useful for synchronous loads and that not dispatching > them is a performance optimization. Is that the reason? > > I don't really feel strongly either way, though I do think that from a > web developers point of view it would be more useful to dispatch the > events than not to dispatch them. And being consistent with regards to > readystatechange is always nice. It is a performance optimization, yes. Firing a lot of progress events for a large file that is synchronously downloaded in a Web Worker seems like waste. The reason readystatechange events are dispatched is because Internet Explorer already did that. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 09:20:37 UTC