Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a "url" parameter and a "name"
parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using the
same script resource without having to load separate resources from the
server.
Per section 4.8.3 of the SharedWorkers spec, if a page loads a shared work
> Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a "url" parameter and a "name"
> parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using the
> same script resource without having to load separate resources from the
> server.
> [ request that name be scoped to the URL, rather than the entir
>... Additionally, a typo in one page (i.e. invoking
>SharedWorker("mypagescript?", "name") instead of
>SharedWorker("mypagescript", "name") will keep all subsequent pages in that
>domain from loading a worker under that name so long as the original page
>resides in the page cache.
In this case, i
That suggestion has also been floating around in some internal discussions.
I'd have to objections to this approach either, although I'm not familiar
enough with URL semantics to know if this is a valid use of URL fragments.
-atw
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
> > Currently,
Drew Wilson wrote:
> Per section 4.8.3 of the SharedWorkers spec, if a
> page loads a shared worker with a url and name,
> it is illegal for any other page under the same
> origin to load a worker with the same name but a
> different URL -- the SharedWorker name becomes
> essentially a shared
Tim Berners-Lee seems to think this could be a valid use of URI references.
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html"The significance of the
fragment identifier is a function of the MIME type of the object"
Are there any existing semantics defined for fragments on text/java-script
objects?
/
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
>
>
> > I'd have to objections to this
> Did you mean to say "i'd have no objectsion to this"?
>
Yes, I have *no* objections to either approach. Apparently the coffee hadn't
quite hit my fingers yet.
-atw
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
> Tim Berners-Lee seems to think this could be a valid use of URI references.
>
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html
> "The significance of the fragment identifier is a function of the MIME type
> of the object"
>
> Are there any ex
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
>> Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a "url" parameter and a "name"
>> parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using the
>> same script resource without having to load separate resources from the
>> server.
>
>> [ requ
What purpose the the 'name' serve? Just seems uncessary to have the notion
of 'named' workers. They need to be identified. The url, including the
fragment part, could serve that purpse just fine without a seperate 'name'.
The 'name' is not enough to identify the worker, is the
identifier. Can the
I agree. Moreover, since a shared worker identified by a given name cannot
be "navigated" elsewhere, the name isn't all that synonymous with other
usages of names (e.g., window.open). At the very least, it would seem
helpful to scope the name to the URL to avoid the name conflict issue.
-Darin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> I agree. Moreover, since a shared worker identified by a given name cannot
> be "navigated" elsewhere, the name isn't all that synonymous with other
> usages of names (e.g., window.open). At the very least, it would seem
> helpful to scope t
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> > I agree. Moreover, since a shared worker identified by a given name
> cannot
> > be "navigated" elsewhere, the name isn't all that synonymous with other
> > usages of names (e.g., wi
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>> > I agree. Moreover, since a shared worker identified by a given name
>> > cannot
>> > be "navigated" elsewhere, the name isn
An alternative would be to make the "name" parameter optional, where
omitting the name would create an unnamed worker that is identified/shared
only by its url.
So pages would only specify the name in cases where they actually want to
have multiple instances of a shared worker.
-atw
On Tue, Aug 1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> An alternative would be to make the "name" parameter optional, where
> omitting the name would create an unnamed worker that is identified/shared
> only by its url.
> So pages would only specify the name in cases where they actually want to
> ha
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> > An alternative would be to make the "name" parameter optional, where
> > omitting the name would create an unnamed worker that is
> identified/shared
> > only by its url.
> > So pages w
Drew Wilson wrote:
>
> Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a "url" parameter and a "name"
> parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using
> the same script resource without having to load separate resources from
> the server.
>
> Per section 4.8.3 of the SharedWorker
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Drew Wilson wrote:
>> Per section 4.8.3 of the SharedWorkers spec,
>> if a page loads a shared worker with a url and
>> name, it is illegal for any other page under the
>> same origin to load a worker with the same name
> The idea here is that
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Jim Jewett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Drew Wilson wrote:
> >> Per section 4.8.3 of the SharedWorkers spec, if a page loads a shared
> >> worker with a url and name, it is illegal for any other page under
> >> the same origin to load a wor
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > An alternative would be to make the "name" parameter optional, where
> > > omitting the name would create an unnamed worker that is
> > > identifi
21 matches
Mail list logo
