Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:33:38 +1100, David Håsäther hasat...@gmail.com wrote: * Charles McCathieNevile @2008-10-21 12:27: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24 Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look through it There are two instances of XMLHTTPRequest, which should be XMLHttpRequest. Oops. Should be fixed now. cheers -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
* Charles McCathieNevile @2008-10-21 12:27: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24 Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look through it There are two instances of XMLHTTPRequest, which should be XMLHttpRequest. -- David Håsäther
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:08:56 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: I agree. Not sure if that is what you want to do before or after getting the load/error/abort event though? I should mention that I'm not particularly married to having things one way or another. But I think we should have reasons for choosing. Agree. Anyone who has another use case for loadend, please post up. I was also wondering why in your use case it made sense to fire loadend before load/error/abort? I.e. what would you be doing in those events such that you want the progress bar hidden at that point. Though I do agree that it makes sense to say i'm done before here's the data (or it failed). It seems to me that the order is not that significant - either you are trapping the specific end cases (I'm done / It failed), or you don't really care about them so you use the convenience loadend event, e.g. to remove your progress bar. I'm done is the loadend event and it failed is the error message from abort|error. Given that whichever comes first will fire whichever comes second, I think the symmetry is as good an argument as any for ordering, so I am inclined to leave what we have now. Garrett, do you think that is really a wrong decision (and if so do others agree we should change it back)? I've coded to requirements that specify the busy icon being hidden and a message being shown. In those cases, I wanted a 'done' event. It would be helpful to have input from HCI and U/X experts. What are the majority of cases, is it notify user of progress complete and display a message, or display a message, then notify the user of progress complete. Having loadend fire last is still better than not having it at all. In the cases where order is significant, then it's still possible to code around it. Cheers Chaals --
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
Garrett Smith wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: I agree. Not sure if that is what you want to do before or after getting the load/error/abort event though? I should mention that I'm not particularly married to having things one way or another. But I think we should have reasons for choosing. Agree. Anyone who has another use case for loadend, please post up. I was also wondering why in your use case it made sense to fire loadend before load/error/abort? I.e. what would you be doing in those events such that you want the progress bar hidden at that point. Though I do agree that it makes sense to say i'm done before here's the data (or it failed). / Jonas
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: I agree. Not sure if that is what you want to do before or after getting the load/error/abort event though? I should mention that I'm not particularly married to having things one way or another. But I think we should have reasons for choosing. Agree. Anyone who has another use case for loadend, please post up. Garrett / Jonas /
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
Garrett Smith wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24 Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look through It was agreed that loadend should fire prior to abort | error | load. I do remember that we talked about it that way, and also talked about having the default action of the loadend event be to fire the appropriate abort/error/load event. However I'm not sure why that way is better? I.e. why would you want to prevent abort/error/load from firing? I do like the symmetry in the current proposal where loadstart is the first thing that fires, and loadend is the last thing. Seems very intuitive. / Jonas
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:38:45 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do remember that we talked about it that way, and also talked about having the default action of the loadend event be to fire the appropriate abort/error/load event. However I'm not sure why that way is better? I.e. why would you want to prevent abort/error/load from firing? I do like the symmetry in the current proposal where loadstart is the first thing that fires, and loadend is the last thing. Seems very intuitive. I agree that dispatching loadend last makes sense. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:38:45 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do like the symmetry in the current proposal where loadstart is the first thing that fires, and loadend is the last thing. Seems very intuitive. I agree that dispatching loadend last makes sense. Other than liking the symmetry can you provide a reason for why it makes sense? Garrett -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24 Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look through It was agreed that loadend should fire prior to abort | error | load. I do remember that we talked about it that way, and also talked about having the default action of the loadend event be to fire the appropriate abort/error/load event. However I'm not sure why that way is better? I.e. why would you want to prevent abort/error/load from firing? I can't imagine why anyone would would do that. Seems like a red herring. The goal is to know when a request has completed, to remove the loading state indicator (e.g. progress bar, busy icon, overlay). That is loadend's raison d'être, as I see it, and that is the exact reason I proposed this to Chaals over a year ago (it is in the archives). If loadend fires after load | abort | error, the loading state indicator would be removed after that. I think that is less desirable. We could have it one of two ways: Garrett's way: I'm done then here's your data. Chaals' way: here's your data then I'm done. Garrett / Jonas
New Progress draft (1.25)...
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24 Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look through it, and if you have any test cases we can set up I would be very grateful (as would anyone trying to test something as a way of figuring out what the spec means)... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24 Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look through It was agreed that loadend should fire prior to abort | error | load. Your loadend document is different:- | This must be fired after the operation has completed (i.e. following error, abort or load events) Garrett
