I agree with Kenneth. -Ben Turner
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kenneth Russell <k...@google.com> wrote: > I prefer continuing to use an array for several reasons: simpler > syntax, better type checking at the Web IDL level, and fewer > ECMAScript-specific semantics. > > -Ken > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:29 PM, David Levin <le...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> >> 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 >>> > >> >