On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:01:23 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:58:30 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed consider
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:58:30 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation fo
On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:47:56 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Internet Explorer, for one. Can't break significantly with that.
If the purpose of the XHR specification is simply to document the
Internet Explorer implementation, as determined empirically, then that's
disappo
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw
On May 8, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the
previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need m
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
bizarre readystatechange even
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the
"Anne van Kesteren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:18:55 +0200, Stewart Brodie
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
> >>> drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
> >>> bizarre rea
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:18:55 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm
since, as
"Anne van Kesteren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
> > drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
> > bizarre readyst
On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the
bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm
since,
Re: the 8th May draft at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
I like the reworking of the method descriptions to specify things
algorithmically. However, I do not understand what is going on in the
send() method.
Hi,
Unless there are good reasons not to request a second Last Call for "The
XMLHttpRequest Object" specification by this Friday (midday Paris / Oslo
time) I'll request publication for the following document (editorial
changes may be made during the following days) either that Friday or th
13 matches
Mail list logo
