On Sat, 14 May 2011 00:17:55 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yeah, I think we can get away with this.
The one case where it seems that Gecko and the spec differentiate for
the readystatechange event is that gecko dispatches readystatechange
when going to the DONE state even if the
Hi All,
Currently the XMLHttpRequest Level 2 spec calls for firing no progress
events when a synchronous XMLHttpRequest request is made. It also
doesn't call for any readystatechange events to be fired in response
to any network events.
It *does* however call for a readystatechange event
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
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu 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
On 05/13/2011 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu 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
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 05/13/2011 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/13/11 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It *does* however call for a readystatechange event to be
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 05/13/2011 11:54 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 05/13/2011 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/13/11 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It *does*
