On 10/05/2010 07:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I offered Charles to take over editing of the Progress Events
specification and hopefully drive it to completion. Today I wrote a
draft for ProgressEvent & company inspired by Charles' work:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
I suggest we publish this as a Working Draft.
Relative to the latest Working Draft —
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-progress-events-20080521/ — this has been
changed:
* Allowed the ProgressEvent interface to be used for pretty much
anything. This helps with HTML5 application caches.
* Defined a restricted subset of it for HTTP requests.
* Made it clear that for cross-origin requests these events present a
leak of sorts.
* Event types are now suggestions rather than normative. Specifications
will have to make the final call.
* Added the event type loadend as suggestion; used by XMLHttpRequest.
I still think the interface members have terrible misleading names and
would happily fix that to make them more similar to the names used for
<progress> if we can get agreement, but I guess it is too late for that.
May I ask why you think the interface member names are terrible?
-Olli
Charles' editors draft can be found here:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html
He made more changes but those have never been picked up by other
specifications or implementations so I decided to not base it on that.
