On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:58:34 +0200, Brad Fults [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an unfortunate ripple in that case. Most of what I said assumed
that one vendor implemented a feature in a certain way and the rest
implemented it in the same way (save for IE).
That almost never happens, if ever.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:08:53 +0200, Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At the moment, Gecko allows adding a single onreadystatechange
listener that's notified of changes in readyState. We would like to
add the ability to add such listeners via addEventListener; the event
name would
Hi Boris,
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:51:03 +0200, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment, Gecko allows adding a single onprogress
DOMEventListener that's notified of download progress.
We would like to make two changes to the progress event setup:
1) Allow adding progress
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
That bug talks about making the document empty, instead of returning
null as the specification says.
Those comments predate the specification, no?
Is it the plan to follow what the specification says or does it need to
be changed for the above reason for example?
Gorm Haug Eriksen wrote:
Btw, I found two strange behaviours while looking at it now. It seems
like the onprogress event is one cycle before responseText.length.
The interaction between the two in Gecko is undefined and subject to change.
Also, strange things seems to happen if the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:35:01 +0200, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would wait until all vendors get a chance to review a proposal in
public. The people that need this behaviour are capable of implementing
it today using server side scripting.
Actually, we have consumers that need
On Apr 24, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I understand that as an implementor you don't want to sit around
waiting for standards bodies to include features in a spec before
implementing them. However, since there is an active, open and
healthy standards
