Thanks for the clarification :-) It shouldn't be dificult, specially for DataChannels: WebWorkers has already support for WebSockets and their API is the same (and the security context fairly similar...). I agree on let this discussion to the WebRTC group.
Send from my Samsung Galaxy Note II El 11/12/2013 22:18, "Ian Hickson" <i...@hixie.ch> escribió: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, pira...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > - Canvas in Workers > > > There's been various proposals, including one in the spec that > hasn't > > > met with implementor approval; I'm waiting for something to get > > > traction amongst the competing proposals. > > > > > > - Being clearer about what features are visible in workers > > > Blocked on: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22646 > > > > I have proposed several times about allowing to create PeerConnection > > and DataChannel objects from inside a Worker, don't know if that request > > falls into the "what features are visible " topic or if it's a special > > case like the canvas... > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/-bOW_hhs28E > > It's in the "what features are visible" topic, unless there's anything > specific about the API that needs changing in workers. > > As far as the WebRTC stuff goes, though, I'll let the WebRTC group decide > what should happen. The issue of being clearer about what features are > visible in workers is mostly about getting some IDL-level keyword that we > can use to make it easier to specify (right now it can be done but has to > be done in prose, and I haven't been consistent about it in my specs). > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
