On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Olli Pettay <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 05/13/2011 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 5/13/11 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It *does* however call for a readystatechange event to be fired in >>>> response to the call to .open. Even if the request being started is a >>>> synchronous one. >>>> >>>> What is the use case for this event? It seems pretty useless and >>>> inconsistent to me. >>>> >>> >>> I believe web pages depend on this to some extent; the fact that Gecko >>> used >>> to not fire it caused all sorts of compat issues. See >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313646 >>> >> >> Ugh, yeah, in testing my patch I came across the same bug. >> >> So it appears the spec needs to be adjusted the other direction then. >> It needs to define that readystatechange needs to fire in all cases >> independent of the value of the asynchronous flag? >> > > No. We don't want to fire any events *during* sync XHR processing. > I would definitely prefer not to on philosophical grounds, but I think it's required for compatibility and that trumps theoretical purity. The spec should document reality. - James > > > -Olli > > > >> / Jonas >> >> >> > >
