On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, the latest URL is:
https://www.scirra.com/labs/specs/imagebitmap-conversion-extensions.html
I'm new to specs and WebIDL, my intent was to say those are new methods on
ImageBitmap. Is partial
Looks great! Seems very well thought through.
The API seems large enough that it would be worth prototyping it and
writing test applications to make sure it addresses key use cases
before finalizing the spec.
-Ken
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Feras Moussa feras.mou...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I think you might have misunderstood my initial comment.
I agree that the current partial data solution is not good. I think we
should remove it.
I'd really like
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
What would be the advantage? If you wanted to keep dom elements in sync
with the canvas you'd still have to post something from the worker back to
the main thread so the main thread would know to pop.
Well,
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Gregg Tavares (勤) g...@google.com wrote:
So how to take this forward?
My #1 priority is to get WebGL in workers. Lots of developers have expressed
a need for this from decoding compressed textures in a worker to offloading
thousands of draw calls per frame to
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Gregg Tavares (勤) g...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Gregg Tavares (勤) g...@google.com
wrote:
So how to take this forward?
My #1 priority is to get WebGL
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Seems like right now passing a typed array to send() requires a bit of extra
hoop-jumping to pass the .buffer instead, right? Is that desirable?
It may be convenient to add an overload to send() (presumably on both
XHR and
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Seems like right now passing a typed array to send() requires a bit of
extra
hoop-jumping
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/11/12 5:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Sending an ArrayBufferView would still have to use arraybuffer as
the type of data. I don't think it would be a good idea to try to
instantiate the same subclass
terminology, whether or not the
object is a Transferable.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
I would be hesitant to impose a close() method on all future
Transferable types.
Why? All Transferable types must define how to neuter objects; all close()
does
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
You
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/7/12 12:34 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russellk...@google.com wrote:
I believe that we should fix
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Greg Billock gbill...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/5/2012 5:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Do you see old behavior working
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
Ken,
I'm not sure that adding close() to Transferable is a good idea. Not
all Transferable types may want to support that explicit operation.
What about adding close() to Blob, and having the neutering operation
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct behavior in all cases. Adding String conversions
directly to the typed array spec will introduce dependencies that are
strongly undesirable, and make it much harder to implement the core
spec. Hopefully Josh can
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Slightly larger issue. In the typed array spec, views like Float32Array
refer to an ArrayBuffer instance. It's
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Ian Hickson wrote:
How about we just make postMessage() take the object to clone in the first
argument, an array of objects to transfer in the second; on the other
side, the author receives the object
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:57 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
Let's say the call doesn't throw when given a type B that isn't
transferrable.
Let's also say some later changes the javascript code and uses B after
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
Honestly, there’s something about this whole discussion that just doesn’t
feel right.
I looks like we’re trying to graft-in this new concept of transfer of
ownership into the existing postMessage semantics
to need to change to address the
issues raised in this thread?
-Art Barstow
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0797.html
On Jun/3/2011 8:47 PM, ext Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Andrew Wilsonatwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3
I prefer continuing to use an array for several reasons: simpler
syntax, better type checking at the Web IDL level, and fewer
ECMAScript-specific semantics.
-Ken
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:29 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Kenneth Russell k
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
I prefer continuing to use an array for several reasons: simpler
syntax, better type checking at the Web IDL level, and fewer
ECMAScript-specific
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
I prefer
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@google.com wrote:
a) Recursive transfer lists. Allow arbitrary objects, not only ArrayBuffers,
to appear in transfer lists. ArrayBuffers that are under objects in
transfer
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API
don't
Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:02 AM
To: ext Jonas Sicking; Kenneth Russell; Ian Hickson
Cc: Travis Leithead; g...@google.com; cmar...@apple.com; gl...@zewt.org;
public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Jonas's suggestion of adding another
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:53 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
In summary, there is a desire for a mechanism to transfer objects (to allow
for potentially better perf) across a MessagePort.
The mechanism:
needs to have an intuitive feel for developers,
must preserve backwards
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Jonas's suggestion of adding another argument to postMessage, and
Gregg's generalization to declare it as an array of objects to be
transferred rather than copied, sounds good.
We
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
The editors' draft of the typed array spec has been updated with a
strawman proposal for this zero-copy, transfer-of-ownership behavior:
http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
Firefox 6 is going to add support for the the new responseType and
response properties. We would have liked to release these as
moz-prefixed properties, but it appears that webkit has already
shipped them
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
Firefox 6 is going to add support for the the new responseType
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
Probably not the only one, but check the WebWorkers and images thread
on whatwg.
Yeah, I thought about that case. The extra complication there is that
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
Now that ArrayBuffer has made
This API doesn't handle all of the desired use cases. In particular,
to implement Quake-style mouse look (needed for e.g.
http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/) it needs to work when the
mouse button is up, not just down.
-Ken
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Robert O'Callahan
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
This API doesn't handle all of the desired use cases. In particular,
to implement Quake-style mouse look (needed for e.g.
http
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:55:33 +0200, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
Mozilla's experimental name is mozResponseArrayBuffer, so perhaps to
avoid collisions the spec could call it responseArrayBuffer.
While I do
view types (Uint8Array, Float32Array, etc.)
except for Float64Array are already implemented in WebKit. The major
missing one for file and network I/O is DataView.
-Ken
Jian
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Anne van
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 08.09.2010 17:35, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
...
Okay. I guess we can all add support for it and see who screams :-)
I can certainly add this to XMLHttpRequest Level 2 and have been wanting
to do that since
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
Web Sockets is certainly another candidate, but I meant Web Workers. There
have been informal discussions on using ArrayBuffers as a way to safely
share binary data between
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
Web Sockets is certainly another
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Jian Li wrote:
Hi,
Several specs, like File API and WebGL, use ArrayBuffer, while other spec,
like XMLHttpRequest Level 2, use ByteArray. Should we change to use the
same
name all across our specs? Since we define ArrayBuffer
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Sebastian
Markbågesebast...@calyptus.eu wrote:
This suggestion seems similar to Digg's Stream project that uses multipart
documents: http://github.com/digg/stream
While it would be nice to have a way to parse and handle this in JavaScript,
it shouldn't be
45 matches
Mail list logo
