On 5/8/07, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:16:57 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On May 7, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>> I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that does not
>> support XML at all !!
>
> I d
On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 12:19:30 PM, Anne wrote:
AvK> On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:49:17 +0200, Stewart Brodie
AvK> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see why HTTP is mandatory either, to be honest, although I accept
>> that that's what most scripts will use it for.
AvK> The problem is that thin
On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 12:10:55 PM, Anne wrote:
AvK> On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:16:57 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AvK> wrote:
>> On May 7, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>>> I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that does not
>>> support XML at all !!
On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 11:49:17 AM, Stewart wrote:
SB> Chris Lilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 12:11:38 AM, Innovimax wrote:
>> IS> I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that
>> IS> does not support XML at all !!
>> I agree that an XHR with no
On Wed, 09 May 2007 13:31:43 +0200, Olli Pettay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What the upload event target would look like?
I think there should be some way to get from upload to the xhr object to
identify what xhr the upload object is related to.
So maybe something like
[...]
This is probab
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Hi everyone,
Anne, Ian and I were discussing the fact that the Progress Events spec
requires duplicates of every event for upload as well as download. This
makes the spec a fair bit more complicated, especially if it ends up
specifying a number of different progre
