- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:01:29 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Philip J?genstedt wrote: > 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. Ok, removed loadend from HTML5 altogether. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 05:01:29 UTC