Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-20 Thread Arthur Barstow
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]

RE: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-17 Thread Travis Leithead
Thanks James. I'll wait till the broken tests are fixed to re-review the IE results. From: James Graham Sent: 12/16/2013 9:55 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-16 Thread James Graham
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] Looking at this link, the

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-16 Thread Arthur Barstow
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] Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorre

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-16 Thread James Graham
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] Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Publ

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-12 Thread James Graham
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] 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

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-12 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] 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 http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-test

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-12 Thread Kinuko Yasuda
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 12/11/13 6:39 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking >> wrote: >> >> We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It >>> will be turned on in the nightly releases starti

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-12 Thread James Graham
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 the

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-12 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 12/12/13 7:31 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:42:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow 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 implementation report

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-12 Thread Simon Pieters
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:42:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow 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, the workers implement

Re: Workers v2 (Was: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec)

2013-12-11 Thread pira...@gmail.com
> - 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: http

Workers v2 (Was: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec)

2013-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
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

RE: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-11 Thread Travis Leithead
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 co

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-11 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 12/11/13 6:39 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, 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. Exc

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-11 Thread Simon Pieters
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, 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. Excellent. So if we are only reason we're doing a

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-11 Thread Simon Pieters
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead 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 spec itself. I'm afraid that

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-10 Thread Alexandre Morgaut
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: http://doc.waka

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-10 Thread James Graham
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 imp

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-10 Thread Jonas Sicking
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 good

Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-10 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead 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 spec itself. It is my intenti

Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

2013-12-10 Thread Travis Leithead
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 tra