Le 13/02/2012 20:44, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be lovely if the Worker script could simply make a
>> synchronous call to fetch data from the Window?
> It wouldn't be so much a synchronous call, so much as a blocking get.
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 201
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>>
>> 2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob is a reality? Mainly,
>> if we modify things for the *most common* use case, that could be useful
>> in mitigating some of our fears. Hixie, is th
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, John J Barton wrote:
>> >
>> > Why would the connectivity part of this be the hard part?
>>
>> Because the existing information on cross-domain iframe communications
>> is incomplete and written in terms few Web app develo
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> alert("hello", finishedMessage);
> yieldUntil(finishedMessage);
> finishedFunc();
>
> which would send a message on port1 when it completes. Waiting on
> multiple ports would be straightforward, eg. msg = yield([port1, port2,
> port3]), t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> An alternative is to add continuations to the platform:
>
> // continuation
> // (this is not a formal proposal, just a illustration of the concept)
> var message;
> self.onmessage = function (event) {
> message = event;
> sign
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, John J Barton wrote:
> >
> > Why would the connectivity part of this be the hard part?
>
> Because the existing information on cross-domain iframe communications
> is incomplete and written in terms few Web app developers understand,
> the browser implementations are new and
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it be lovely if the Worker script could simply make a
>> synchronous call to fetch data from the Window?
>
> It wouldn't be so much a synchronous call, so much as a blocking get.
>..
> Any
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Joshua Bell wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be lovely if the Worker script could simply make a
> synchronous call to fetch data from the Window?
It wouldn't be so much a synchronous call, so much as a blocking get.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> We can only allow chi
>
>
>
> Short answer: yes. Particularly, I know that Rafael has spent
> significant time with several of the templating systems, and Dimitri
> and several others have had at least a decent exposure to them and the
> developers of them.
>
> ~TJ
>
Great! Thanks for the follow up :)
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:18:35 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
wrote:
I think per https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15359 we
want to let the BOM checking happen before the other considerations.
Really? Does that mean, favoring BOM checking over the Blob's type
attribute and the optional
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15973
Simon Pieters changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15973
Summary: For WSS, there should be no masking from client to
server. Masking is only necessary for WS client to
server.
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Pla
12 matches
Mail list logo
