Re: Opening discussion on StreamWorker

On 11/18/11 5:35 PM, Andrew Wilson wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Charles Pritchard > wrote: On 11/17/2011 4:52 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: Currently, Web Workers provides a "heavy" scope for multithreaded Web Apps to handle heavy data proce

Re: Opening discussion on StreamWorker

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 11/17/2011 4:52 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > >> Currently, Web Workers provides a "heavy" scope for multithreaded Web >> Apps to handle heavy data processing. >> >> I'd like to draw on those specs and create a new lightweight scope

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

* Joshua Bell wrote: >Jonas and I were having an offline discussing regarding the synchronous >Indexed Database API and noting how clean and straightforward it will allow >Worker scripts to be. One general Worker issue we noted - independent of >IDB - was that there are cases where Worker scripts m

Re: [IndexedDB] transaction order

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > On Friday, October 14, 2011 6:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Israel Hilerio >> wrote: >> > On Friday, October 07, 2011 4:35 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: >> >> On Friday, October 07, 2011 2:52 PM, Jonas Sicking

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

I'd like to request that people stop sending posts about web intents to public-webapps@w3.org and public-device-a...@w3.org The new list exists and should be used: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2011Nov/ On 11/18/11, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 11/18/11 10:29 AM, Paul

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 11/18/11 10:29 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Charles Pritchard > wrote: On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock mailto:gbill...@google.com>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 a

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > My initial concerns aside and with no trolling intentions... The above > literal expressions are all syntax errors, = should be : > A typo I make regularly; it's a side-effect of using having too many languages rattling around in my head at o

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM, David Levin wrote: > The primary use case is one in which messages sent to > DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope are reserved for synchronous messaging. > > Mostly, yes, or otherwise dealing with unrelated messages

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > ** > On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> >>> As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock > wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard mailto:ch...@jumis.com>> wrote: As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does it

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM, David Levin wrote: > The primary use case is one in which messages sent to > DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope are reserved for synchronous messaging. > Mostly, yes, or otherwise dealing with unrelated messages coming in while you're waiting for a response. It's possi

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, David Levin wrote: > >> So the primary use case is code in the worker which has no other (async) >> messages coming in? >> > > No--you can always create another message channel for other types of > messages

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, David Levin wrote: > So the primary use case is code in the worker which has no other (async) > messages coming in? > No--you can always create another message channel for other types of messages, if you need to. (Of course, you shouldn't receive messages on ot

[Web Intents] Task Force Mailing List set up

The Web Intents Task Force is starting to take shape! If you'd like to be a part of shaping this API, please involve yourself by joining the new mailing list. A W3C mailing list has been set up: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/ To subscribe to this mailing list, send an em

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM, David Levin wrote: > >> Ah so the proposal is really only adding a new method only >> on DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope which send a synchronous message and >> something corresponding on Worker which can respon

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM, David Levin wrote: > Ah so the proposal is really only adding a new method only > on DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope which send a synchronous message and > something corresponding on Worker which can respond to this. > There's no need for a new sending method; only a

Re: TAG Comment on

> Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document > for this LC: > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2 Thank you. Noah On 11/18/2011 10:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking

Re: CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage; deadline Nov 25

On Friday, November 18, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged > and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The > deadline for comments is November 25 and all comments should be sent to > public-webapps a

Re: TAG Comment on

Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document for this LC: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2 If anyone wants to propose extensions or changes to Web Storage, please use [Bugzilla] and please feel free to contribute to the group

Re: Last Call Comments on Web Storage

Ashok - your comment has been added to the comment tracking document for this LC: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-1 If you want to propose extensions or changes to Web Storage, please use [Bugzilla] and please feel free to contribute to the group's [Data

CfC: publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage; deadline Nov 25

The comment period for the October 25 LCWD of Web Storage [LC] ended November 15. No bugs were submitted since the LC was published. Two comments were submitted and they are tracked in: [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011 I propose: a) the comments in [1]

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:10:36 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Why not? We have context-dependent treatment of MIME types already (e.g. a text/html resource can be treated as a script). These are workarounds because of legacy, I assume. Workers are a new feature. Workers ignore the MIME type

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On 2011-11-18 14:04, Simon Pieters wrote: On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:46:16 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: That's fine if you use a new type, or profile an existing one. But claiming that charset=... means something else before depending on the context it's used in is asking for trouble. What kind

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:46:16 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: That's fine if you use a new type, or profile an existing one. But claiming that charset=... means something else before depending on the context it's used in is asking for trouble. What kind of trouble? Just use UTF-8. If you c

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On 2011-11-18 13:44, Simon Pieters wrote: On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:22:42 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-18 13:03, Simon Pieters wrote: UTF-8-only for workers is deliberate. I don't see any reason to reject scripts that have other charset. Rejecting the script would mean that some autho

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:22:42 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-18 13:03, Simon Pieters wrote: UTF-8-only for workers is deliberate. I don't see any reason to reject scripts that have other charset. Rejecting the script would mean that some authors can't use workers at all because their

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:03:03 +0100, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 11/19/11 12:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: says. For what it's worth, Gecko's worker loading code runs the same algorithm to determine the charset as the algorithm u

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On 2011-11-18 13:03, Simon Pieters wrote: UTF-8-only for workers is deliberate. I don't see any reason to reject scripts that have other charset. Rejecting the script would mean that some authors can't use workers at all because their server uses charset and they can't change it. What kind of s

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On 11/19/11 12:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: says. For what it's worth, Gecko's worker loading code runs the same algorithm to determine the charset as the algorithm used for

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:52:36 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: If Gecko does that for Workers, that would be a bug. Workers are UTF-8 only. If you are saying that Content-Type: application/javascript;charset=iso-8859-1 ... 0xC3 0xB6 ... should have U+00C3 U+00B6 when used via

Re: Firefox bug: "Worker" load ignores Content-Type version parameter

On 2011-11-18 12:36, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-18 12:29, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:32:22 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: I recently started looking at FF's Content-Type related code. As far as I can tell, there are at least two code paths, on

[Bug 14847] HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols Upgrade: WebSocket Connection: Upgrade Sec-WebSocket-Accept: nToZIrKj/IYE0NjsLns7R+Msfcg=

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14847 Art Barstow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: XHR content-type rewriting

On 2011-11-17 07:14, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-17 01:55, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 11/17/11 2:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: - Opera and IE do not rewrite the type; so if the caller sets the wrong charset, this is what is sent to the server Which on the face of it is broken Absolutel

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > >> ** >> Does anybody use registerProtocolHandler in any real sense? Is >> registerContentHandler needed? It seems like Web Intents is an evolution on >> the concept. I don't think w

[Bug 14848] HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols Upgrade: WebSocket Connection: Upgrade Sec-WebSocket-Accept: nToZIrKj/IYE0NjsLns7R+Msfcg=

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14848 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|