On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > My plan is to make it so that cross-origin URLs start cross-origin > > workers. The main unresolved question is how to do this in an opt-in > > manner. The best idea I've come up with so far is having scripts that > > want to opt-in to being run in such a way start with a line line: > > > > // Cross-Origin Worker for: http://example.net > > > > ...or (for multiple domains): > > > > // Cross-Origin Worker for: http://example.com https://example.org > > > > ...or (for any domain): > > > > // Cross-Origin Worker for all origins > > > > ...but that doesn't seem super neat. > > Just as an update, I still plan to do this, but I'm currently waiting for > browser vendors to more widely implement the existing Worker, > SharedWorker, MessagePort, and PortCollection features before adding more > features to this part of the spec. It would also be helpful to have > confirmation from browser vendors that y'all actually _want_ cross-origin > workers, before I spec it. >
The only difference with cross-origin workers is that they're in a different execution environment, right? If so, seems like a good thing to support. I don't see any downside and it doesn't sound especially difficult to implement. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
