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 dedicated workers,
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, David Levin wrote:
I don't really see the use case for self-reloading. Do scripts
self-reload in general?
For people who want to update script in SharedWorker, could they do it
by making the SharedWorker merely a shell?
The SharedWorker would create a Worker to
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
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Chris Double [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
video_element.src=http://www.double.co.nz/video_test/ascannerdarkly480.ogg;;
video_element.currentTime=10;
video_element.play();
You can
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Chris Double [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
toKeyFrame - optional, boolean, default false. if true indicates goto
the nearest keyframe of the value provided in secondsToSeek.
this is
Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
Nov 6, 2008, в 2:18 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
Similarly, having separate interfaces for Worker and SharedWorker
implies that there is some fundamental difference in their behavior -
a difference that eludes me so far.
A shared worker is shared between all
did this thread go anywhere ?i'm concerned about the maybe case - looks
way too much like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DShow#Codec_hell
also - when you probe for mime type, do you mean the entire type parameter
(including the codecs string) ? for example, there are too many cases where
just
On Nov 13, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Doig wrote:
did this thread go anywhere ?
See http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/browsers.html#dom-navigator-canplaytype
.
i'm concerned about the maybe case - looks way too much like:
I'm also a bit concerned about how to interpret the yes, no and maybe
return values. The truthful answer is going to be maybe for all but
the obviously unsupport (application/x-ms-dos-executable) and the more
trivial formats (audio/wav).
When asking about application/ogg, this could mean 2
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
See
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/browsers.html#dom-navigator-canplaytype
.
There was widespread dissatisfaction with the form of the API. I think it
would be a lot better if there were two
2008/11/13 Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So at this point the main problem with making any changes is that we
are very close to shipping Firefox 3.1. I.e. it is extremely hard to
make changes. It is very unfortunate that we have ended up in this
situation again. We were in a very similar to
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I'm also a bit concerned about how to interpret the yes, no and maybe
return values. The truthful answer is going to be maybe for all but
the obviously unsupporter (application/x-ms-dos-executable) and the more
trivial
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, if the codec parameter is used then the user agent may answer yes
and no in a way that actually makes some sense.
I also think that this should be explicitly related to the type
attribute of the source element.
Here are my preference on changes, in descending order:
* Add a connect() method to Worker and/or SharedWorker
There has been lots of talk about this, but I'm still confused as to
what the exact proposals are due to lack of details. But here is my
interpretation
Details:
- Make instantiating a
Nov 14, 2008, в 1:20 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
If we don't make the above change, I think that we should remove
startConversation(). It doesn't offer enough different functionality
over passing a |new MessageChannel().port2| to be worth the extra API
IMO.
No, this is *exactly* the same
I haven't written a summary of changes because this is a rather involved
issue and I'd like everyone who has an opinion to actually read this.
I missed a few e-mails sent in the last few hours in this reply, as I
started this yesterday. I'll read and respond to those in a bit.
On Thu, 28 Aug
Pitching in here, I think it's OK if we want to go to a two-state
answer -- but those answers are No and Maybe, not No and Yes. There
are, after all, vanishingly small numbers of mime types where I can
be 'completely' (within reason) confident of a 'yes' answer. On the
other hand, given a
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
I like that it doesn't tie Worker and MessagePort lifetimes too closely,
which means that it has a higher chance of being paradox-free.
Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand. What paradoxes
might exist?
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008,
I don't see any value in the user-agent specified amount of time delay
in stopping scripts. How can you write cleanup code when you have no
consistency in how long it gets to run (or if it runs at all)? If you
can't rely on a cleanup then it becomes necessary to have some kind of
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Shannon wrote:
I don't see any value in the user-agent specified amount of time delay
in stopping scripts. How can you write cleanup code when you have no
consistency in how long it gets to run (or if it runs at all)?
The user-agent specified amount of time delay is
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Chris Double [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There were 81 e-mails on the topic of looping audio and video.
I haven't included them here because they were mostly redundant. However,
I read them all, and it seems that the use cases and feedback boiled down
to these points:
1. Feedback: Simplify the API where possible; in particular
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding whether to play audio while rewinding:
Leaving this be something that is optional doesn't make sense to me.
If we want interoperability, we need to
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Sander van Zoest wrote:
source pixelratio=10:11 !-- 525 composite NTSC --
source pixelratio=59:54 !-- 625 composite PAL --
source pixelratio=1018:1062 !-- 1920x1035 HDTV SMPTE RP 187-1995 --
Currently pixelratio is a floating point number, as in:
source
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Shannon wrote:
I don't see any value in the user-agent specified amount of time delay
in stopping scripts. How can you write cleanup code when you have no
consistency in how long it gets to run (or if it runs at all)?
The user-agent specified amount of
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Honestly I'm not really sure why the spec says that you need a list at
all, other than maybe to talk about GC (which i've many times mentioned
I think the spec should not need to define).
I remembered what it was that I was trying to remember the
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Actually, i think we should remove the location accessor as well. I
can't think of a common enough use case that warrants an explicit API.
You can always transfer the data through postMessage.
I added that one becase Aaron asked for it. Aaron?
--
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Actually, i think we should remove the location accessor as well. I
can't think of a common enough use case that warrants an explicit API.
You can always transfer the data through
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I have missed a key point, please do let me know. It's quite
possible that I missed something when reading this thread as it was
quite long and had a lot of repetition.
Sounds good to me.
/ Jonas
The small element represents small print [...]
The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from
the normal prose without conveying any extra importance [...]
Both definitions seems rather presentational (contrasting, for example,
the new semantic definition for the i
I agree that incorrectly encoded videos are annoying, but I don't
think
we should have this attribute at all because I don't think it
passes the
will it be commonly used smell test.
I am also afraid that it will difficult to use correctly, since you
frequently have to use clean aperture in
Hi All,
It is currently possible (I think) to send a port through postMessage
after the port was started. This makes sending ports across processes
(such as to an iframe or worker living in a different process) pretty
painful to implement. It also makes it hard to define without causing
race
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Actually, i think we should remove the location accessor as well. I
can't think of a common enough use case
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I am proposing changing the spec to make the load() not select a
resource. Instead, load() would immediately return, and the user agent
would then asynchronously try each resource that it might otherwise
use in turn, firing a single
Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Actually, i think we should remove the location accessor as well. I
can't think of a common enough use case that warrants an explicit API.
You can always
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Actually, i think we should remove the location accessor as well. I
can't think of a common enough
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Honestly I'm not really sure why the spec says that you need a list at
all, other than maybe to talk about GC (which i've many times mentioned
I think the spec should not need to define).
I remembered what it was that I was trying
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I don't really see how we can do away with this without interop
issues.
It sounds to me like simply saying:
setTimout(handler, ms):
When called will schedule a event 'ms' milliseconds after the function
is called. When the event fires
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I don't really see how we can do away with this without interop
issues.
It sounds to me like simply saying:
setTimout(handler, ms):
When called will schedule a event 'ms' milliseconds after the function
is called. When the event
39 matches
Mail list logo
