- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:02:18 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > Yes, we could live with it but the semantics are more complex. Is this the
> > same as calling abort() then readAsXXX()?
>
> Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically:
>
> readAsX(...) {
> if (requestInProgress)
> abort();
>
> ... start new reading ...
> }
>
> > When does the abort event get queued? What
> > will be the state of the reader at this point? Will loadend get fired? It
> > needs careful speccing to make sure that the details are handled the same in
> > different implementations.
>
> Calling the abort() fires the "abort" and "loadend" events before the
> function returns. Likewise readAsX fires the "loadstart" event before
> it returns. So if a load has already started, then readAsX fires,
> before it returns, the following events in order:
>
> "abort", "loadend", "loadstart"
>
> But indeed, the spec needs improvements here.
Does loadstart fire synchronously or asynchronously (presuming the first two fire
synchronously?)?
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 16:02:47 UTC