Re: [whatwg] onclose events for MessagePort

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/1/13 2:11 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> How often do we expect two tabs to be talking to each other though? >> > > Or a page to an out-of-process subframe? > > How often do we expect MessageChannel to be used at all? Speaking as an web

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for IsSearchProviderInstalled / AddSearchProvider

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > > > Then why add an API when we've already got (IMO superior) declarative > > > markup? > > > > In the case of adding the API to the spec, because it's already > > implemented. As to why

Re: [whatwg] Questions on error handling in web workers

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, David Levin wrote: > > > > The wording in the Web Workers part of the spec about what to do for > > onerror has confused a number of people. > > > > Recently, when asked about it, I thoug

Re: [whatwg] Questions on error handling in web workers

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Jian Li wrote: > > > > I have a couple questions regarding error handling in HTML 5 workers. In > > the spec, it says "Whenever a runtime script error occurs in one of the > > worker's scripts, if the error did not occur w

Re: [whatwg] window.cipher HTML crypto API draft spec

Should it also be available in Web Workers? On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > Why window.cipher and not just window.crypto? > > Adam > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:04 AM, David Dahl wrote: > > Hello WHATWG members, > > > > With user control and privacy in mind, I have creat

Re: [whatwg] Proposing .toBlob(contentType)

Shouldn't this api be async? Returning a blob means that the size is available which implies a sync operation. dave On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > Hello All, > > Gecko 2.0 ships with a non-standard method on named > mozGetAsFile(contentType, fileName).  We added this for i

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for IsSearchProviderInstalled / AddSearchProvider

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > > 2. When a user decides to use it, they have to follow a set of complex > > instructions (http://www.google.com/search?q=switch+default+search+engines > ) > > > Annoying implementation issue. http://bugzilla.mozilla.com/enter_bug.cgi >

[whatwg] Proposal for IsSearchProviderInstalled / AddSearchProvider

Problem Although the default search provider may have a significant impact on a user’s web experience, it isn’t easy for users to set this. Ideally, a search engine should be able to offer the user the ability to easily use it as the default. Currently, there are two obstacles to this: 1. The sear

Re: [whatwg] WebWorkers and images

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Berend-Jan Wever wrote: > > I ask because I wanted to port an image manipulation script to a WebWorker, > but found out that WebWorkers have no way to use elements such as canvas > and > img. fwiw, ImageData can be used in a worker. Many folks have argued that canv

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest (and how it is full of political BS)

I believe this has already been addressed in that thread which I guess you'll get in the next digest. Now back to getting things done. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Joseph Thomas wrote: > Occasionally, I notice that a single conversation completely dominates > my digest emails for this group

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

Summarizing We've found that a synchronous solution will likely lead to a bad user experience. As an alternative, we've presented an async apiwhich solves this frequent use case

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Kornel Lesinski wrote: > > JPEG can be efficiently decoded at fraction of its size — without full > decode and scale process. This process also needs only fraction of memory > required for full scaling, which might matter on low-end mobile devices. > Letting UA uti

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

I've improved the accuracy of the canvas (resize/copy/rotate) perf test: http://webkit.org/demos/canvas-perf/canvas.html Here are some results in a similar format to what Mike posted ( http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-March/025590.html): Firefox 3.7a4 (no D2D) Direct imag

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Aryeh Gregor > wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:21 PM, David Levin wrote: > > We've discussed the leading alternate proposal optimized canvas (plus js > to > > read the exif information) and then get the bits out of canvas, but th

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

Thanks for all the feedback. We've gotten into a lot of details about this proposal for image resizing (without hanging the UI), so I'd like to step back to a summary of the current state: 1. We've presented several use cases which demonstrate many websites which would benefit from this fea

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> I'd also love to hear from Mike Shaver and others from the original thread >> what they think of this API proposal. >> > > I think Shaver's feedback still applies: on any de

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On May 20, 2010, at 1:00 PM, David Levin wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > I'm not clear on why this API is needed. ... This API seems much less >

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On May 20, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> I'd also love to hear from Mike Shaver and others from the original thread >> what they think of this API propos

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > I'm not clear on why this API is needed. ... This API seems much less general than offscreen canvas, so it's subject to the same criticism and you can't even make the argument that it also serves other use cases. The criticism for the

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

Thanks for your feedback Gregg. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote: > This really seems like the wrong solution. Taken to an extreme next you'll > need to add VideoRisizer, AudioRecompresser, and any thing else JavaScript > can't do without freezing the browser. > > It seems li

Re: [whatwg] Image resize API proposal

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Markus Ernst wrote: > >> > I am a web author with limited scripting knowledge, so I apologize I can't > give a qualified feedback to your proposal in detail. > > Generally I consider client side image resizing a very good idea; currently > I use a Java applet for

Re: [whatwg] Offscreen canvas (or canvas for web workers).

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > > > > On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> I'm not saying that the proposed API is bad. It just doesn't seem to > >> solve the (seemingly most commonly requested) use

Re: [whatwg] Offscreen canvas (or canvas for web workers).

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM, David Levin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> What is the use case for this? It seems like in most cases you'll want > >&

Re: [whatwg] feedback

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, David Levin wrote: > > > > I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about > > having a canvas that is available to workers. They suggested some nice > >

Re: [whatwg] Offscreen canvas (or canvas for web workers).

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Drew Wilson wrote: > Do we feel that text APIs are, in general, difficult to implement in a > multi-thread safe manner? > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Michael Nordman wrote: > The lack of support for text drawing in the worker context seems like a > shor

Re: [whatwg] Offscreen canvas (or canvas for web workers).

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM, David Levin wrote: > > I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about > having > > a canvas that is available to workers. They suggested some nice > >

[whatwg] Offscreen canvas (or canvas for web workers).

I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about having a canvas that is available to workers. They suggested some nice modifications to make it an offscreen canvas, which may be used in the Document or in a Worker. Proposal: Introduce an OffscreenCanvas which may be created f

Re: [whatwg] Notification API

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Drew Wilson > wrote: > >> > >> 2) Allow more full-featured HTML notifications on the overwhelming > >> majority of platforms that support them.

Re: [whatwg] HTMLCanvasElement.toFile()

Jan 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM, David Levin wrote: >> > > >> > > It seems like it the method should be toBlob. >> > > >> > > > This doesn't address my concern that you won't know the mime type of >> > > > the blob returned. >

Re: [whatwg] HTMLCanvasElement.toFile()

It seems like it the method should be toBlob. > This doesn't address my concern that you won't know the mime type of > the blob returned. This makes a good case to move the "readonly attrbiute DOMString type" from File to Blob. dave

Re: [whatwg] Security risks of persistent background content (Re: Installed Apps)

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Michael Davidson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > Here's some security risks I've thought about, for persistent workers and > > persistent background pages: > > > > > > Thanks for the list, Maciej. However, Firefox exte

Re: [whatwg] Installed Apps

It feels like this has become a discussion of which dangerous feature is more dangerous Several browsers (or browser like things) have mechanisms for allowing the installation of potentially dangerous things. For example, FireFox has the extension install mechanism. Google Chrome has/must hav

Re: [whatwg] Installed Apps

It sounds like most of the concerns are about the 2nd part of this proposal: allowing a background page to continue running after the visible page has been closed. However, the first part sounds like it alone would be useful to web applications like GMail: The first, which should begenerally usef

Re: [whatwg] AppCache and SharedWorkers?

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Drew Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: > >> The appcache spec has changed since the ian and i sent these old messages. >> Child browsing contexts (nested iframes) no longer "inherit" the appcache of >> their parent context (fr

Re: [whatwg] Questions on Workers spec

It looks like all of this is there in a just published update of the spec. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Dmitry Titov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I have couple of questions about Workers: > > 1. The sample code looks as > if setTimeout/clearTimeout/setInterval/clearInterval should be

Re: [whatwg] Workers

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (cc'ed whatwg -- sorry if that wasn't what you intended) > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Michael Nordman wrote: > > > > > Is it possible for a worker (shared or dedicated) to reload itself? > > > > > > Not currently. > > > > For