On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
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.
Agreed. Ultimately, it would be good for all specifications with
elements or objects that are potential sources of progress events to
document how they apply.
Regards,
Maciej
