Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:54:17 +0200, Jonas Sicking <
jonas@...> wrote:
>> This is definitely a good question, one that I'd like to see addressed
>> too.
>>
>> I think that if the spec remains as is Firefox would likely fire
>> events that implements both the ProgressEvent interface and the
>> LSProgressEvent interface, but encourage people to use the
>> ProgressEvent interface. Possibly even by putting a message in the
>> error console when the old interface properties are accessed.
>
> If we want a different interface I think the progress events
> specification should be changed. XMLHttpRequest Level 2 simply uses
> whatever Progress Events 1.0 defines at this point and I'd like to keep
> it that way.
FWIW i'm fine with keeping things the way they are. Though there is
definitely a risk that other vendors will "have to" implement the
LSProgressEvent interface as well in order to support content out there
that is written for firefox. But we're talking about two extra
properties whose implementation will basically just be to forward to
another property so I doubt that it's a big burden.
/ Jonas
