On 27.03.2009, at 0:16, Drew Wilson wrote:
Are you suggesting that user agents may want to require explicit
user permission when any application invokes
ApplicationCache.update()? That might be a reasonable approach if a
given user agent wants to enforce some kind of no silent update
On 26.03.2009, at 1:01, Drew Wilson wrote:
* Shared (or persistent) worker contexts should be associated with
an appcache according to the same resource loading and cache
selection logic used for top-level browsing contexts. (So just like
navigating a window.)
That may make sense for
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
Letting faceless background processes update themselves without user
consent is not necessarily desirable. I think that they need browser UI for
this, and/or associated HTML configuration pages that could (among other
On 26.03.2009, at 19:26, Drew Wilson wrote:
Letting faceless background processes update themselves without user
consent is not necessarily desirable. I think that they need browser
UI for this, and/or associated HTML configuration pages that could
(among other duties) trigger application
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
But I was looking at this in terms of a model for users, not any specific
security threats - if we think of persistent workers as an equivalent of
native applications that need installation, then we should consider
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 (frame) by default.
How's this for a starting point for how these things intereract...
* Dedicated worker contexts should be
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
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 (frame) by default.
How's this for a starting
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
The appcache spec has changed since the ian and i sent these old messages.
Child browsing contexts (nested iframes) no longer inherit the appcache
Good point - I like the idea of nested workers, especially if the
SharedWorker uses the pattern where it just passes off all incoming message
ports directly to the nested worker so it doesn't have to proxy messages.
It'd have to have some app-specific mechanism to get them all back when it
wants
I'm trying to understand the ApplicationCache spec as it applies to workers,
but I didn't find anything promising when I searched the archives. Is
ApplicationCache intended to apply to workers? The application cache API
isn't available to workers, but I'm guessing the intent is that if an
10 matches
Mail list logo
