Re: ISSUE-113: How do we represent HTTP POST?

2007-03-07 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Mar 7, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Web APIs Issue Tracker wrote: ISSUE-113: How do we represent HTTP POST? http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/webapi/issues/113 Raised by: Charles Mccathienevile On product: Progress Event POST can upload a pile of stuff, and then download a body. So there are t

ISSUE-113: How do we represent HTTP POST?

2007-03-07 Thread Web APIs Issue Tracker
ISSUE-113: How do we represent HTTP POST? http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/webapi/issues/113 Raised by: Charles Mccathienevile On product: Progress Event POST can upload a pile of stuff, and then download a body. So there are two parts of the transaction whose progress would be useful to tra

Re: WheelEvent alignment with MouseWheelEvent

2007-03-07 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:09:44 +1100, Andrew Sledd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chaals, > In conjunction with reviewing the ProgressEvents I've tried to review all of > the other events we have also spoken of referencing instead of specifying to > align specs. We've discussed this previously wrt

RE: Network API editor's draft

2007-03-07 Thread Mike Wilson
Hi Charles, I see only non-blocking communication in the draft. This is probably intentional, but adding the possibility for "blocking sockets" would provide more flexibility for the developer, and make some problems easier to solve. This could be provided in different ways, f ex through a co

Re: Network API editor's draft

2007-03-07 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > > > Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are > > hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the intent that this > > specification replace the WHATWG version? > > Hmm. It is intended to be used by a similar aud

Re: Network API editor's draft

2007-03-07 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:27:50 +1100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are > hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the intent that this > specification replace the WHATWG version? Hmm. It is intended to be used by a si

Re: New Progress Events spec

2007-03-07 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:17:14 +1100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> > I think the event 'progressError' should be 'error' for backwards >> > compatibility. ... >> The spec doesn't mention 'error' or 'abort', but the ways to arrive at

Re: Network API editor's draft

2007-03-07 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Thanks to Gorm and the WHATWG, we have > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/network-api/network-api.html Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the inte

Re: New Progress Events spec

2007-03-07 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > > > I think the event 'progressError' should be 'error' for backwards > > compatibility. > > > > I think the event 'progressCanceled' should be 'abort' for backwards > > compatibility. > > > > I think the event 'progressComplete' should be 'l

Re: New Progress Events spec

2007-03-07 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:39 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:13:58 +1100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 6, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/ Progress.html?rev=1.8 I would

Re: [XHR] Unespected case

2007-03-07 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:07:51 +1100, Diego La Monica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Denis Sureau: > > The ping example seems not the best example of what a POST request usually is. > I suggest a more useful request as following, instead: > > var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(); > xhr.onreadystatechange

Re: New Progress Events spec

2007-03-07 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Mar 7, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:38:41 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When the size is known, that knowledge is not necessarily accurate. Can you cite an example? Content-Length: 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-

Re: New Progress Events spec

2007-03-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:38:41 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When the size is known, that knowledge is not necessarily accurate. Can you cite an example? Content-Length: 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Would be one I suppose... -- Anne van

Re: [XHR] Unespected case

2007-03-07 Thread Diego La Monica
Denis Sureau: The ping example seems not the best example of what a POST request usually is. I suggest a more useful request as following, instead: var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(); xhr.onreadystatechange=function() { if(xhr.readyState == 4) { alert("sent " + data); } }; xhr.open("POST", "test.p