On 12/16/13 12:53 PM, ext James Graham wrote:
On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[IR]
On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers
Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect
tests (e.g. see
On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers
Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously
On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote:
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers
Looking at this link,
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:42:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
One of the issues here is `missing data`.
Indeed.
The first Call for workers Test Results was sent over a half-year ago
and another one a few weeks before WebApps' Shenzhen meeting. Despite
those requests,
On 12/12/13 7:31 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:42:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The first Call for workers Test Results was sent over a half-year ago
and another one a few weeks before WebApps' Shenzhen meeting. Despite
those requests, the workers
Redirecting this conversation to public-test-infra.
On 12/12/13 13:01, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/12/13 7:31 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote:
First I ran the tests using
https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/test-runner/src on a local server, but
then I couldn't think of a straight-forward way to put
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
On 12/11/13 6:39 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers
Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect
tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077
which says that
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers
Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect
tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077
which says that
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove
Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec
to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe
thursday) and will hit release on April 29th.
Excellent.
So if we are only
On 12/11/13 6:39 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe
thursday) and will hit release on
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
wrote:
Travis - would you please add results for IE?
Done.
Note: IE's implementation generates a Syntax Error on 'new Worker(#)' which
causes a huge chunk of these tests to fail, where otherwise, I think we would
be passing them if we could
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Jonas Sicking wrote:
However I'd really like to see us start a level 2 of the spec. The
synchronous messaging channels is something else I'd like to see done
there.
There's seven features I'm aware of that people have asked for that aren't
in Workers currently, or are
- 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:
During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared
Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the
first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself.
It is my intention to start this work soon. My question for the group-should I
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove
Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec
to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe
thursday) and will hit release on April 29th.
So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd
implementation, then we might already be
On 10/12/13 21:09, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe
thursday) and will hit release on April 29th.
So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd
As the specification was more written for browser targets I'm not sure if it
count for an implementation to you but note that Shared Worker, as well
as dedicated workers, are also implemented natively on the server in
Wakanda since few versions and often used in this context.
see:
21 matches
Mail list logo
