Re: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage
Hi, girls guys, I have implemented the interface I proposed for firefox. if you want to have a try. you can download it from here. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/postmsg/ document: http://www.jackiszhp.info/tech/addon.postMSG.html Glenn Maynard said to me several times about shared worker. www.google.com www.google.ca how do they communicate? sharedworker? It seems to me that you did not read what I wrote, or you just do not understand the point. I am sorry for both. with best regards Jack (Zhan, Hua Ping) +1-647-971-6390
Re: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage
The postMessage design outlined in the W3C document edited by Ian
Hickson is not good!
The design of the cross document messaging by Ian Hickson (Google,
Inc.) is very bad.
Even the last version is not good either. The design can be sketched
here as follows.
The sender:
var o = document.getElementsByTagName('iframe')[0];
o.contentWindow.postMessage('Hello world', 'http://b.example.org/');
The receiver:
window.addEventListener('message', receiver, false);
function receiver(e) {
if (e.origin == 'http://example.com') {
if (e.data == 'Hello world') {
e.source.postMessage('Hello', e.origin);
} else {
alert(e.data);
}
}
}
This design was messed up by pulling origin (a word that some people
put too much attention more than should).
Even worse, it requires o.contentWindow, this is really no
professional sense. Because of this design, if I open two tabs with
the same url http://www.google.com/ they are not able to communicate.
My proposal is discard the o.contentWindow part requirement.
My better proposal
the sender:
window.postMessage(messageObject,targetDomain optional,windowIDs optional);
Either targetDomain or windowIDs should present.
I propose to use ID rather than name (though window can have a name),
since window.name is not required to be unique within the browser.
then the user agent(i.e. the browser, such as firefox) will do the following
var e={source: {href: get the sender's window.location.href,
windowID: unique windowID within this browser
},
target: {domain: targetDomain as the sender requested,
windows: the array of windowID
},
data: JSON.parse(JSON.stringtify(messageObject)),
ts: the timestamp when the post is requested
};
if(windowIDs presents){
postEvent to those windows.
} else {
traverse the list of all windows
for (each window){
if(the domain of the window matches the target domain of the message) {
postEvent(e);
}
}
the receiver
/*
return true to indicate to continue to receive message from this sender
return false to indicate to deny messages from this sender forever
(as long as the browser can remember this)
*/
function receiver(e) {
if (e.source is accepted) {
take the e.data to do whatever as desired.
return true;
}
return false;
}
window.addEventListener('message', receiver, false);
if the receiver wants to respond to the sender
window.postMessage(messageObject,targetDomain optional,windowIDs optional);
targetDomain can be found from e.source.href
windowID can be found from e.source.windowID
messageObject is the message object intended to be sent.
About domain match
the specification of the target domain can be
www.google.com
or google.com this should match *.google.com
or com this should match *.com
or as for all
or https://www.google.com
or http://www.google.com:9876/abc/
For the last case, if a
window.location.href==http://www.google.com:9876/def/;, then they do
not match.
About Security
As long as the receiver check who is the sender which is identified by
the user agent, there is no security issue at all.
About context sharing within the browser
Whether session data should be shared among the different processes of
the same browser. such as cookies. It seems that firefox does not
allow 2 different processes unless use different profile.
Here, one more setting, whether the windowIDs should be unique across
different process. Within the same process among different tabs, they
must be unique. If no more than one process is allowed, then such
setting is not relevant.
Challenge
A bad design waste people's energy time, to promote the better
solution. I am offering a reward for the 1st one who implement my
proposal. If you can do this before march 1st, 2013, I will give you
$10.
jackis...@gmail.com
pdf version
Last update: 2013.01.27 21:30
RE: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage
Jack,
With all due respect, this feedback is a little late. The spec in question is
now at candidate recommendation, and there are multiple interoperable
implementation in existence. While this is not to say that the spec cannot be
changed at this point, I would anticipate that many participants in the working
group (include myself) would be very hesitant to change their implementations
due to existing web compatibility.
Having said that, I don't believe that the existing design of postMessage is as
bad is you make it sound :-)
-Travis
-Original Message-
From: Jack (Zhan, Hua Ping) [mailto:jackis...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:04 PM
To: i...@hixie.ch
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; wha...@whatwg.org
Subject: Re: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage
The postMessage design outlined in the W3C document edited by Ian
Hickson is not good!
The design of the cross document messaging by Ian Hickson (Google,
Inc.) is very bad.
Even the last version is not good either. The design can be sketched
here as follows.
The sender:
var o = document.getElementsByTagName('iframe')[0];
o.contentWindow.postMessage('Hello world', 'http://b.example.org/');
The receiver:
window.addEventListener('message', receiver, false);
function receiver(e) {
if (e.origin == 'http://example.com') {
if (e.data == 'Hello world') {
e.source.postMessage('Hello', e.origin);
} else {
alert(e.data);
}
}
}
This design was messed up by pulling origin (a word that some people
put too much attention more than should).
Even worse, it requires o.contentWindow, this is really no
professional sense. Because of this design, if I open two tabs with
the same url http://www.google.com/ they are not able to communicate.
My proposal is discard the o.contentWindow part requirement.
My better proposal
the sender:
window.postMessage(messageObject,targetDomain optional,windowIDs
optional);
Either targetDomain or windowIDs should present.
I propose to use ID rather than name (though window can have a name),
since window.name is not required to be unique within the browser.
then the user agent(i.e. the browser, such as firefox) will do the
following
var e={source: {href: get the sender's window.location.href,
windowID: unique windowID within this browser
},
target: {domain: targetDomain as the sender requested,
windows: the array of windowID
},
data: JSON.parse(JSON.stringtify(messageObject)),
ts: the timestamp when the post is requested
};
if(windowIDs presents){
postEvent to those windows.
} else {
traverse the list of all windows
for (each window){
if(the domain of the window matches the target domain of the message)
{
postEvent(e);
}
}
the receiver
/*
return true to indicate to continue to receive message from this sender
return false to indicate to deny messages from this sender forever
(as long as the browser can remember this)
*/
function receiver(e) {
if (e.source is accepted) {
take the e.data to do whatever as desired.
return true;
}
return false;
}
window.addEventListener('message', receiver, false);
if the receiver wants to respond to the sender
window.postMessage(messageObject,targetDomain optional,windowIDs
optional);
targetDomain can be found from e.source.href
windowID can be found from e.source.windowID
messageObject is the message object intended to be sent.
About domain match
the specification of the target domain can be
www.google.com
or google.com this should match *.google.com
or com this should match *.com
or as for all
or https://www.google.com
or http://www.google.com:9876/abc/
For the last case, if a
window.location.href==http://www.google.com:9876/def/;, then they do
not match.
About Security
As long as the receiver check who is the sender which is identified by
the user agent, there is no security issue at all.
About context sharing within the browser
Whether session data should be shared among the different processes of
the same browser. such as cookies. It seems that firefox does not
allow 2 different processes unless use different profile.
Here, one more setting, whether the windowIDs should be unique across
different process. Within the same process among different tabs, they
must be unique. If no more than one process is allowed, then such
setting is not relevant.
Challenge
A bad design waste people's energy time, to promote the better
solution. I am offering a reward for the 1st one who implement my
proposal. If you can do this before march 1st, 2013, I will give you
$10.
jackis...@gmail.com
pdf version
Last update: 2013.01.27 21:30
Re: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage
Dear Travis, Glad to hear from you. Are you guys do volunteer job for that? or are you get paid for that? If you guys are volunteering there, I have no say about. If you guys do get paid, then please be professional and put things right at the first place. Bad standard wastes internet community's time, energy, and money too. with best regards Jack (Zhan, Hua Ping) +1-647-971-6390 On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Jack, With all due respect, this feedback is a little late. The spec in question is now at candidate recommendation, and there are multiple interoperable implementation in existence. While this is not to say that the spec cannot be changed at this point, I would anticipate that many participants in the working group (include myself) would be very hesitant to change their implementations due to existing web compatibility. Having said that, I don't believe that the existing design of postMessage is as bad is you make it sound :-) -Travis
Re: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage
Hi Jack. Here we are both profesionals, volunteers and mainly profesionals volunteering. W3C and WhatWG are not companies but only places where anybody can add propositions and discuss them, but here nobody get money (directly) from work here. Me, for example, I'm just an student. I can understand your point of view and necessity of improve the standards, I also had the same problem in other aspects and complained about it when my propositions where discarded although they improved the standard, but the best I can say to you, if you so much need these modifications, you can implement them yourself, build an adaptor over the current status, or the best addapt your idea about what's the current state of the things. Be angry about don't do the things the right way (as supossed to you) it's not the way to go. Less words, more work. 2013/1/28 Jack (Zhan, Hua Ping) jackis...@gmail.com: Dear Travis, Glad to hear from you. Are you guys do volunteer job for that? or are you get paid for that? If you guys are volunteering there, I have no say about. If you guys do get paid, then please be professional and put things right at the first place. Bad standard wastes internet community's time, energy, and money too. with best regards Jack (Zhan, Hua Ping) +1-647-971-6390 On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Jack, With all due respect, this feedback is a little late. The spec in question is now at candidate recommendation, and there are multiple interoperable implementation in existence. While this is not to say that the spec cannot be changed at this point, I would anticipate that many participants in the working group (include myself) would be very hesitant to change their implementations due to existing web compatibility. Having said that, I don't believe that the existing design of postMessage is as bad is you make it sound :-) -Travis -- Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo Unix. – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
