On Thursday 2016-01-07 08:52 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:05 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > This specification is derived from an upstream WHATWG specification.
>
> And therefore hasn't removed the storage mutex concept it seems. Not
> sure if
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:24 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > Could you give a brief explanation of what the storage mutex is, and
> > why it was/should be removed?
>
> It prevents races for storage and
A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C
(including Mozilla) to vote on, before they proceed to the final
stage of being W3C Recomendation:
Web Storage (Second Edition)
http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
deadline: January 8, 2016 (Friday!)
This specification is
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:05 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> This specification is derived from an upstream WHATWG specification.
And therefore hasn't removed the storage mutex concept it seems. Not
sure if that's careworthy since we don't implement from TR/ anyway,
but I thought
The Web Apps Working Group at W3C has published a Proposed
Recommendation, Web Storage (the stage before W3C's final stage,
Recommendation):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-webstorage-20130409/
There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla
is one) open until Tuesday, May 7.
5 matches
Mail list logo