- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:50:50 -0700
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- 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 Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2011 12:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically:
>> >>
>> >> readAsX(...) {
>> >> if (requestInProgress)
>> >> abort();
>> >>
>> >> ... start new reading ...
>
>> >> 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?)?
>>
>> All three fire synchronously. I.e. all three events fire before the
>> readAsX function returns.
>
> Currently the spec says "Queue a task to dispatch a progress event called
> loadstart". Is that incorrect or just different when restarting a read?
That is incorrect. The spec currently needs a lot of work in regards
to the event firing, so don't assume it is correct for now. The basic
idea is to follow XMLHttpRequest.
/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 21:51:49 UTC