Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:53:32 -0400, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree we shouldn't prevent synthesized events. But why not say that
no ProgressEvents are dispatch at all?
That would prevent synthesized ProgressEvent events.
I mean that the implementat
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:53:32 -0400, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree we shouldn't prevent synthesized events. But why not say that no
ProgressEvents are dispatch at all?
That would prevent synthesized ProgressEvent events.
Seems like you at least have to prevent 'abort' as
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:03:43 -0400, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Then I'll specify the former as special casing those methods here is
something I rather not do. I'd much rather have addEventListener,
addEventListenerNS, onprogress,
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:03:43 -0400, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Then I'll specify the former as special casing those methods here is
something I rather not do. I'd much rather have addEventListener,
addEventListenerNS, onprogress, etc. work consistently.
Hi All,
I think we should dump the Widgets preferences API in favor of HTML5
DOM's storage API. Basically, preferences API basically replicates
what DOM Storage already defines. Also, DOM storage is already
implemented across three or four browsers and we can assume the
specification to be fairly
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Looks great. The only thing I'd add is to be more explicit around the
initial description of the cache that each cache entry always has
exactly one of 'method' and 'header' empty and the other non-empty.
I.e. that either of them always exist, but never both.
Ok, will fix t
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Then I'll specify the former as special casing those methods here is
something I rather not do. I'd much rather have addEventListener,
addEventListenerNS, onprogress, etc. work consistently.
I've done it this way. The 'progress' and 'load' events are only
dispatched
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:26:05 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> However I think that if we are using URI syntax for these headers we
>> should treat them as URIs and not as opaque strings. Everywher
