Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv:
On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur
Barstowart.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
2.http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this
test
failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)
that
is expected to be fixed.
I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers a
bug. Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
an API work off the main thread.
That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
soon.
Thanks for this info Jonas.
My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the
main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or
someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second
implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that
at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in
progress.
Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes
and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving
this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your
position a formal objection?
Hi,
if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome
canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.
(Fixes for
http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html should
appear overnight also.)
hth
--sigbjorn
Re: Adopting postMessage and MessageChannel from HTML5?
On 1/9/2010 09:00, Ian Hickson wrote: Would this working group be interested in adopting the Window.postMessage and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently split from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have suggested it might be best in the webapps group. I'd be happy to continue editing it, it would just mean a change in the headers, as with Web Storage, etc (and would similarly remain in the WHATWG complete spec). How do you plan to handle the dependency on the structured cloning algorithm? Leave it as a back pointer to HTML5 or also extricate ( tidy up)? --sigbjorn; s...@opera.com
Re: Adopting postMessage and MessageChannel from HTML5?
On 1/9/2010 23:05, Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Sigbjorn Finne wrote: On 1/9/2010 09:00, Ian Hickson wrote: Would this working group be interested in adopting the Window.postMessage and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently split from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have suggested it might be best in the webapps group. I'd be happy to continue editing it, it would just mean a change in the headers, as with Web Storage, etc (and would similarly remain in the WHATWG complete spec). How do you plan to handle the dependency on the structured cloning algorithm? Leave it as a back pointer to HTML5 or also extricate ( tidy up)? There are complex dependencies amongst a number of specs here -- Web Workers, Web Storage, HTML5, and this hypothetical draft all relate to each other. I don't think it's possible to sanely define the features in a way that is completely self-contained (well, short of putting them all in one spec, but that isn't popular at the W3C!). Assuming people are ok with it, therefore, I propose to leave the structured cloning algorithm in HTML5, along with the Window object. That works. You can remove some trivial dependencies by introducing an abstract interface that captures the cloneability of native/host objects. One benefit being that there is no longer the need to updatesync HTML5 Chapter 2 for every object added by individual specs. To wit, 2.8.5 is still using FileData and not Blob. I bet updating this is in your backlog though :) --sigbjorn; s...@opera.com
