AM
> To: Gottfried Zimmermann; 'web API'
> Cc: 'WAI PF public'
> Subject: Re: New Progress Events spec
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:13:22 -0700, Gottfried Zimmermann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Charles,
> >
> >
Charles McCathieNevile:
> Estimating the total or remaining time is in general (e.g. for network
> operations, but also for compilation and similar extension use cases)
> just a guess based on what has happened so far, and it seems to make
> more sense to me to leave that to the consumer of the pr
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:13:22 -0700, Gottfried Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Charles,
>
> a couple of comments:
>
> (1) I think it would be useful to have (optional) information about time
> included in the event, such as:
> * elapsedTime
> * estimatedTotalTime
> * estimatedRemainingT
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:03 AM
> To: web API
> Cc: WAI PF public
> Subject: New Progress Events spec
>
>
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progr
> ess.html?rev=1.8
>
At 1:02 PM +1100 7 03 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.8
I would appreciate review, and in particular propose to publish this
spec as a First Public Working Draft more or less in its current
shape.
All other com
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
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
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
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-
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
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:45:25 +1100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>To+: Bjoern. Bjoern, could you please review this specification
>>for compatibility with DOM3 events?
>
> I've already made a number of comments, assuming the issues I pointed
> o
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:
- "User agents may dispatch one or more ProgressEvent of type
progress while a network operation is taking place." -- per my
earlier use cases documen
* Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>To+: Bjoern. Bjoern, could you please review this specification
>for compatibility with DOM3 events?
I've already made a number of comments, assuming the issues I pointed
out have been fixed, I do not currently have anything to add, but will
follow the draft as it
To+: Bjoern. Bjoern, could you please review this specification for
compatibility with DOM3 events?
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:19:46 +1100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progr
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 appreciate review, and in particular propose to p
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 appreciate review, and in particular propose to publish
this spec as a First Public Working Draft more or less in its
current shape.
I thi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html
Early comments:
XmlHttpRequest should be XMLHttpRequest.
I disagree with "in general specifications should not specify that
progress events must occur". I don't think r
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.8
I would appreciate review, and in particular propose to publish this spec as a
First Public Working Draft more or less in its current shape.
All other comments and criticisms are of course appreciated...
cheers
Cha
18 matches
Mail list logo
