Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1

Cyril - unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume you are 
satisfied with the way your comments have been addressed:

Anne - assuming Cyril is agreeable with the way his comments were 
addressed, please update the ED to reflect a CR publication (e.g. add CR 
exit criteria you used in rev 1.25) and notify me when you are done so I 
can start a CfC to publish a CR.

-Thanks, AB

On 8/16/11 7:54 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:06:25 +0200, Cyril Concolato 
> <> wrote:
>> The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It 
>> starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it 
>> should be split in two: general statement with a full sentence (now 
>> it seems to end at "letter" ?) and then add the example. Also add 
>> "to" before "prefix" and "start".
> Fair enough, I dropped it. Progress Events is so small anyway and the 
> specification it depends upon (DOM Core) already has clearer text on 
> extensibility.
>>> There are no requirements.
>> When reading that: "The editor is encouraged to define it in a way 
>> consistent with this", it did not seem so.
> Well there are no specific requirements. If other editors do it wrong 
> that will be pointed out, but since use can vary wildly I doubt that 
> will happen much.
>>> Because it very much depends on the context.
>> Example ?
> Cross-origin XMLHttpRequest versus same-origin XMLHttpRequest versus 
> the HTML application cache feature.

Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 13:33:19 UTC