- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:51:09 +0200
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:08:19 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Philip J?genstedt wrote: >> >> Since we're going to contradict the progress events spec anyway, I would >> suggest dropping all 'loadend' events. They're just not very useful. > > I've left it in the other cases, since, well, Progress Events says to. > But > I'd be happy to drop loadend in all cases (including other Progress > Events > cases) if that makes sense. > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> We have the same issue, unsurprisingly. Currently our progress events >> are not very useful because we report the download position (although we >> do suppress progress events while we read metadata from the end of the >> file). According to the spec, however, progress events should report the >> *amount* of data downloaded, not the position within the resource. >> That's a bit more useful, although it's still unclear what to do when >> data is discarded from the cache and then re-downloaded. > > Ok, I've switched them back to regular Event events, though using the > same > event names. We added loadend just to comply with Progress Events. Now that we fire simple events instead, please drop loadend again as it serves no purpose at all. I doubt any browser has yet shipped an implementation firing loadend, correct me if I'm wrong. -- Philip J?genstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 03:51:09 UTC