- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:47:37 +0100
- To: "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@google.com>, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Travis Leithead" <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:31:05 +0100, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote: > Sounds like the argument for consistency with previous "readyState" > definitions loses to the use the new best-practice approach. > > To accommodate both, perhaps you should consider _not_ using the name > readyState, and chose another similar-name that can apply the > best-practice syntax. Yeah, you could e.g. use "state". "readyState" is all over the place and used for many different things. In XMLHttpRequest it is probably best avoided these days in favor of more fine-tuned events. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:48:16 UTC