On Monday, April 18, 2011 12:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Bateman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically: > >> > >> readAsX(...) { > >> if (requestInProgress) > >> abort(); > >> > >> ... start new reading ...
> >> Calling the abort() fires the "abort" and "loadend" events before the > >> function returns. Likewise readAsX fires the "loadstart" event before > >> it returns. So if a load has already started, then readAsX fires, > >> before it returns, the following events in order: > >> > >> "abort", "loadend", "loadstart" > >> > >> But indeed, the spec needs improvements here. > > > > Does loadstart fire synchronously or asynchronously (presuming the first > two fire > > synchronously?)? > > All three fire synchronously. I.e. all three events fire before the > readAsX function returns. Currently the spec says "Queue a task to dispatch a progress event called loadstart". Is that incorrect or just different when restarting a read? Adrian.
