On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Kenneth Russell <k...@google.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies > the "ports" argument to postMessage as an array of objects to > transfer, in such a way that we: > Array or object? (by object I mean: {transfer: [arrayBuffer1], ports: [port]}) > > - Maintain 100% backward compatibility > - Enhance the ability to pass MessagePorts, so that the object graph > can refer to them as well > - Allow more object types to participate in transfer of ownership in the > future > > To the best of my knowledge there are no active points of > disagreement. I think we are only waiting for general consensus from > all interested parties that this is the desired step to take. > > If it is, I would be happy to draft proposed edits to the associated > specs; there are several, and the edits may be somewhat involved. I'd > also be happy to share the work with Ian or anyone else. > > I don't know the various processes for web specs, but the Web > Messaging spec will definitely need to be updated if we decide to move > in this direction. > > -Ken > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com> > wrote: > > Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if > the > > participants would please summarize where they think we are on this > issue, > > e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move forward, etc. > > > > Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if my > > premature subject change caused any confusion or problems), since we have > an > > open CfC (ends June 9 [1]) to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web > > Messaging, is the Messaging spec going to need to change to address the > > issues raised in this thread? > > > > -Art Barstow > > > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0797.html > > >