Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:15:50 +1000, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking at the new progress event spec it looks great. I don't
understand why it requires that 'loadstart' and 'progress' be fired
before error though. For example if the requested uri can't even be
parsed as a real uri it seems sensible to fire an error event right
away and abort without doing any further processing.
Wouldn't that depend on the situation? With XMLHttpRequest for instance
if the URI can't be parsed you'd get a SYNTAX_ERR and never arrive here.
The error event is only thrown for network errors. (Similarly, the load
event is dispatched if everything went ok.)
Good point. This is probably going to be true in most specs actually.
I'm still not convinced it's a good idea to mandate that these events
are fired first unless there is a real usecase for it. See below.
I think you do want at least
one loadstart and progress event before that event though.
Why? ('that event' means the error event here, right?)
/ Jonas
