On Mar 06, 2007, at 02:49, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This would require a change in XHR to adopt the Progress Events spec, but would considerably simplify Progress Events. Thoughts?
This is a typical issue with specs that correlate. I'd say that since both specs are controlled by the same WG, and since adding that field to XHR in the the XHR spec doesn't make any sense unless Progress Events are supported, it's fine to extend the XHR interface from within the Progress Events spec. I'll admit I don't have a strong opinion either way though, I just thought I'd bring it up as an option.
-- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The idea is as old as the hills: so old that I expect it will be patented soon." -- Rick Jelliffe
