From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
On Jun/8/2011 5:24 PM, ext Kenneth Russell 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:
- Maintain 100% backward
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 about this whole discussion that just
doesn't feel right.
I looks like we're trying to
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 Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Travis Leithead wrote:
This looks like a mis-reading on my part of step 2 of the postMessage
algorithm:
2.If the method was called with a second argument ports and that
argument isn't null, then, if any of the entries in ports are null, if
any MessagePort object is
