- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:20:52 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > The alternative is to think now about extending Progress Events to deal > with non byte-length progress (e.g. a series of transactions, each of > which is very rapid alone but which add up to minutes). > > My preference would be to create new attributes for this case rather > than overload the total/loaded attributes. A third approach would be to > have a flag which specifies whether the total/loaded attributes measure > bytes, and a related fourth would be to have an attribute that says what > the total/loaded attributes are measuring. > > I have raised ISSUE-105 for this question. It's not clear to me why the current ProgressEvent interface couldn't be used as-is, other than the Progress Events spec saying so. It's not like the events could be confused with events where bytes are intended, in this particular case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 18:13:23 UTC