On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Jim Jewett wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch 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
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
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 SharedWorkers spec, if
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch 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
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Drew Wilsonatwil...@google.com 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
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 Fisherda...@chromium.org 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
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org 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
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
I agree. Moreover, since a shared worker identified by a given name
cannot
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
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Drew Wilsonatwil...@google.com 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
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Michael Nordmanmicha...@google.com 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
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jim Jewettjimjjew...@gmail.com 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.
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, url,name is the
identifier.
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 jimjjew...@gmail.com
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.htmlThe 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 micha...@google.comwrote:
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
... 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, if typo one
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 entire
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 worker
21 matches
Mail list logo
