Looks like the WorkerGlobalScope_ErrorEvent_*.htm tests are still in error
as mentioned below.
dave
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
Thanks! We’ll see about getting these updated…
** **
*From:* David Levin [mailto:le
What is the backwards compatibility story for websites already using
SharedWorkers with the interface that has been in the spec for over a year
now?
There are sites using them. For example, Google Docs uses them and Google
Web Toolkit exposes them.
dave
It seems like this may be setting up a pattern for other dom objects which
are large (like video/audio).
When applied in this context, is close still a good verb for them?
video.close();
dave
PS I'm trying to not bikeshed too badly by avoiding a new name suggestion
and allowing for the fact
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
Ah so the proposal is really only adding a new method only
on DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope which send a synchronous message and
something corresponding
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
each other a synchronous message.
dave
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
Jonas and I were having an offline discussing regarding the synchronous
Indexed Database API and noting how
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
each other a synchronous message.
Indeed. We can only allow child workers
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org
wrote
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
WebWorkers (51 tests/assertions)
Changeset: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/rev/7b0ba70f69b6
Tests: http://w3c-test.org/webapps/Workers/tests/submissions/Microsoft/
* We believe the tests are all accurate but look
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding re-publishing the Web Workers spec [ED] as a new Last Call
Working Draft ...
Bugzilla shows one open bug [Bugs]:
11818 - As documented in the Creating workers
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:57 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
Let's say the call doesn't throw when given a type B that isn't
transferrable.
Let's also say some later changes the javascript code and uses B after
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:14 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:57 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
Let's
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
Making people use a helper function like that is just making them jump an
unnecessary hoop.
It makes them jump through another hoop to potentially
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
support transfer? Ian said that it would throw, but I'm not sure that's
best.
If it doesn't throw, doesn't that introduce the backwards compat issue
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
support
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Kenneth Russell [mailto:k...@google.com], Sent: Thursday, June 09,
2011 11:15 PM
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
Honestly, there's something
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:
ok.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
None of the objects which allow transferring of ownership has children
so this doesn't appear to be a problem at this time. If it indeed does
turn
In summary, there is a desire for a mechanism to transfer objects (to allow
for potentially better perf) across a MessagePort.
The mechanism:
- needs to have an intuitive feel for developers,
- must preserve backwards compatibility,
- should ideally allow the port to function the same
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/2/11 3:53 PM, David Levin wrote:
The mechanism:
* needs to have an intuitive feel for developers,
* must preserve backwards compatibility,
* should ideally allow the port to function the same regardless
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:53 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
The desire would be for this change to apply not just to the
postMessage method
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
port.postMessage({frameBuffer: frame}, {transfer: [frame], ports:
[port
fwiw, specifying up front is what FileReader appears to do:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#dfn-filereader
Of course, there are different methods in that case.
dave
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Based on these constraints, it sounds like we
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.comwrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 23:30:54 +0200, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org
wrote:
Right, it seems reasonable to say that ownership of the resource
referenced by a Blob can be shared by a XHR, Image, or navigation once it is
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Monday, July 12, 2010 2:31 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I read
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
Making the blob url identical to the lifetime of the blob itself would
expose when garbage collection takes place and in general could lead to
easy to make mistakes in which the developer had something that work
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Monday, July 12, 2010 8:24 AM, David Levin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Making the blob url identical to the lifetime of the blob itself would
expose
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Monday, July 12, 2010 9:32 AM, David Levin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The behaviour would have to be explicitly specified and not left to
depend
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Monday, June 28, 2010 2:47 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 6/23/10 9:50 AM, Jian Li wrote:
I think encoding the security origin in the URL allows the UAs to do
the security origin check in place, without
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:40 PM, David Levin wrote:
I agree with you Adrian that it makes sense to let the user agent figure
out the optimal way of implementing origin and other checks.
A logical step from
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 6/22/10 8:44 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
I think it makes more sense for the URL to be opaque and let user
agents figure
out the optimal way of
What about using a filename that is unique with repect to files sent in that
FormData (but it is up to the UA)? For example, a UA may choose to do Blob1,
Blob2, etc. For the content-type, application/octet-string seems most
fitting.
Here's the result applied to your example:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
FWIW, Microsoft explicitly says notifications must be ignorable and don't
persist. Notifications aren't modal and don't require user interaction, so
users can freely ignore them. In Windows Vista® and later, notifications
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:36:26 +0100, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
In the case the first notification from an application is an important
one,
that app should be able to request permission for out-of-tab
It appears that both Safari and Firefox ignore returned cookies from a cross
origin xhr when the credentials flag is set to false. This behavior seems
very reasonable.
Should the XMLHttpRequest level 2 spec indicate that this is the expected
behavior?
Dave
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM, David
In http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/#credentials, it
says: The credentials flag ...indicates whether a non same origin request
includes cookie and HTTP authentication data...during the send() algorithm.
If withCredentials is false, it seems like the cookies returned from the
request shouldn't
Regarding the http redirect security violation steps, the spec (
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/) says If async is set to
false raise a NETWORK_ERR exception and terminate the overall algorithm.
I tried out IE7, Firefox 3, and WebKit nightlies and none of them seem to
throw an
37 matches
Mail list logo
