RE: New Progress Events spec

Charles,

a couple of comments:

(1) I think it would be useful to have (optional) information about time
included in the event, such as:
* elapsedTime
* estimatedTotalTime
* estimatedRemainingTime

It seems that the originator of the ProgressEvent would have a better chance
to do a good estimation than the receiver, since it has probably more
knowledge about bandwidth, other traffic, etc.

(2) The current spec should not be called "ProgressEvent", but rather
"DownloadProgressEvent".  Its scope is restricted to a narrow use case.  

However, have you thought about widening the scope, to include things like:
* Application timeouts (including the ability of AT to extend timeout
durations)
* Processing that requires a long time, e.g. compiling
* Whole transactions (not just downloading data)

Gottfried


> -----Original Message-----
> From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org
> [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:03 AM
> To: web API
> Cc: WAI PF public
> Subject: New Progress Events spec
> 
> 
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progr
> ess.html?rev=1.8
> 
> I would appreciate review, and in particular propose to
> publish this spec as a First Public Working Draft more or 
> less in its current shape.
> 
> All other comments and criticisms are of course appreciated...
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> -- 
>   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
>   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
> chaals@opera.com          Try Opera 9.1     http://opera.com
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:13:47 UTC