On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:02:42 +0100, Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
I think it would be way better to define how they interact in XHR2,
actually.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
