Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:52:25 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: As previously mentioned on [p-w], the test results for Web Messaging [All] indicate significant interoperability with only two tests that have less than two passes [2]. The two tests, including a short analysis of the failure, are: 1. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/with-ports/026.html; this test failure (which passes on Firefox) can be considered more of a Web IDL implementation issue and thus not a significant interop issue. 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that is expected to be fixed. Cindy created a Draft PR [PR] that includes Hixie's updates since the [CR] was published (but not the PortCollection interface [PC] which is not broadly implemented). Overall, we consider the changes since the CR as non-substantive bug fixes and clarifications that align the spec with current implementations, and that the test suite tests the updated spec. See [Diff] for all of changes between the CR and the draft PR and note the draft PR's status section includes a short summary of the changes. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by March 28 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. If there are no non-resolvable objections to this proposal, the motion will carry and we will request the PR be published. Opera supports publishing. -Thanks, ArtB [p-w] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0627.html [All] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/all.html [2] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/less-than-2.html [PR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/PR-webmessaging-20150407/ [CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/ [PC] http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/#broadcasting-to-many-ports [Diff] https://www.diffchecker.com/qswiibb5 -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
RE: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
Microsoft supports publishing this. Thanks to all involved! - Subject:CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:51:45 -0400 From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org As previously mentioned on [p-w], the test results for Web Messaging [All] indicate significant interoperability with only two tests that have less than two passes [2]. The two tests, including a short analysis of the failure, are: 1. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/with-ports/026.html; this test failure (which passes on Firefox) can be considered more of a Web IDL implementation issue and thus not a significant interop issue. 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that is expected to be fixed. Cindy created a Draft PR [PR] that includes Hixie's updates since the [CR] was published (but not the PortCollection interface [PC] which is not broadly implemented). Overall, we consider the changes since the CR as non-substantive bug fixes and clarifications that align the spec with current implementations, and that the test suite tests the updated spec. See [Diff] for all of changes between the CR and the draft PR and note the draft PR's status section includes a short summary of the changes. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by March 28 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. If there are no non-resolvable objections to this proposal, the motion will carry and we will request the PR be published. -Thanks, ArtB [p-w] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0627.html [All] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/all.html [2] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/less-than-2.html [PR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/PR-webmessaging-20150407/ [CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/ [PC] http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/#broadcasting-to-many-ports [Diff] https://www.diffchecker.com/qswiibb5
Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
on 25/03/2015 03:52, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Hi,
if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome
canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.
(Fixes for
http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html
should appear overnight also.)
hth
--sigbjorn
Thank you for the great news, Sigbjorn!
The Canary (Ch43) data was into the ImplReport[1] so right now we have
at least 2 implementations that pass each test file. According to a
recent discussion about MessagePort/MessageChannel[2], Firefox will
serve as another implementation for these APIs soon.
Special thanks to Simon Pieters and Zhiqiang Zhang for their useful
comments while this test suite was being updated.
[1] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/all
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=952139
--
xiaoqian
Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
On 3/24/15 3:52 PM, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv:
On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur
Barstowart.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
2.http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this
test
failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)
that
is expected to be fixed.
I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers a
bug. Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
an API work off the main thread.
That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
soon.
Thanks for this info Jonas.
My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the
main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or
someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second
implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that
at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in
progress.
Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes
and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving
this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your
position a formal objection?
Hi,
if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome
canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.
(Fixes for
http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html
should appear overnight also.)
hth
Yes, that is indeed helpful. Thanks Sigbjorn!
-ArtB
Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv:
On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur
Barstowart.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
2.http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this
test
failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)
that
is expected to be fixed.
I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers a
bug. Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
an API work off the main thread.
That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
soon.
Thanks for this info Jonas.
My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the
main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or
someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second
implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that
at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in
progress.
Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes
and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving
this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your
position a formal objection?
Hi,
if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome
canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.
(Fixes for
http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html should
appear overnight also.)
hth
--sigbjorn
Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that is expected to be fixed. I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers a bug. Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making an API work off the main thread. That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here soon. / Jonas
CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28
As previously mentioned on [p-w], the test results for Web Messaging [All] indicate significant interoperability with only two tests that have less than two passes [2]. The two tests, including a short analysis of the failure, are: 1. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/with-ports/026.html; this test failure (which passes on Firefox) can be considered more of a Web IDL implementation issue and thus not a significant interop issue. 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that is expected to be fixed. Cindy created a Draft PR [PR] that includes Hixie's updates since the [CR] was published (but not the PortCollection interface [PC] which is not broadly implemented). Overall, we consider the changes since the CR as non-substantive bug fixes and clarifications that align the spec with current implementations, and that the test suite tests the updated spec. See [Diff] for all of changes between the CR and the draft PR and note the draft PR's status section includes a short summary of the changes. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to this e-mail by March 28 at the latest. Positive response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal. If there are no non-resolvable objections to this proposal, the motion will carry and we will request the PR be published. -Thanks, ArtB [p-w] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0627.html [All] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/all.html [2] http://w3c.github.io/test-results/webmessaging/less-than-2.html [PR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/PR-webmessaging-20150407/ [CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/ [PC] http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/#broadcasting-to-many-ports [Diff] https://www.diffchecker.com/qswiibb5
