On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(cc'ed whatwg -- sorry if that wasn't what you intended)
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Michael Nordman wrote:
Is it possible for a worker (shared or dedicated) to reload itself?
Not currently.
For dedicated workers,
It looks like all of this is there in a just published update of the spec.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Dmitry Titov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have couple of questions about Workers:
1. The sample code looks as
if setTimeout/clearTimeout/setInterval/clearInterval should be
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
The appcache spec has changed since the ian and i sent these old messages.
Child browsing contexts (nested iframes) no longer inherit the appcache
It sounds like most of the concerns are about the 2nd part of this proposal:
allowing a background page to continue running after the visible page has
been closed.
However, the first part sounds like it alone would be useful to web
applications like GMail:
The first, which should begenerally
It feels like this has become a discussion of which dangerous feature is
more dangerous
Several browsers (or browser like things) have mechanisms for allowing the
installation of potentially dangerous things.
For example, FireFox has the extension install mechanism. Google Chrome
has/must
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Michael Davidson m...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
Here's some security risks I've thought about, for persistent workers and
persistent background pages:
great list of risks
Thanks for the
It seems like it the method should be toBlob.
This doesn't address my concern that you won't know the mime type of
the blob returned.
This makes a good case to move the readonly attrbiute DOMString type from
File to Blob.
dave
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
2) Allow more full-featured HTML notifications on the overwhelming
I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about having
a canvas that is available to workers. They suggested some nice
modifications to make it an offscreen canvas, which may be used in the
Document or in a Worker.
Proposal:
Introduce an OffscreenCanvas which may be created
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
Do we feel that text APIs are, in general, difficult to implement in a
multi-thread safe manner?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com
wrote:
The lack of support for text drawing in the
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, David Levin wrote:
I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about
having a canvas that is available to workers. They suggested some nice
modifications to make it an offscreen
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What is the use case for this? It seems like in most cases you'll want
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I'm not saying that the proposed API is bad. It just doesn't seem to
solve the (seemingly most
Thanks for your feedback Gregg.
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Gregg Tavares g...@google.com wrote:
This really seems like the wrong solution. Taken to an extreme next you'll
need to add VideoRisizer, AudioRecompresser, and any thing else JavaScript
can't do without freezing the browser.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'm not clear on why this API is needed. ... This API seems much less
general than offscreen canvas, so it's subject to the same criticism and you
can't even make the argument that it also serves other use cases.
The
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 20, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'd also love to hear from Mike Shaver and others from the original thread
what they
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 20, 2010, at 1:00 PM, David Levin wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'm not clear on why this API is needed. ... This API seems much less
general than
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'd also love to hear from Mike Shaver and others from the original thread
what they think of this API proposal.
I think Shaver's feedback
Thanks for all the feedback.
We've gotten into a lot of details about this proposal for image resizing
(without hanging the UI), so I'd like to step back to a summary of the
current state:
1. We've presented several use cases which demonstrate many websites
which would benefit from this
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.comsimetrical%2b...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:21 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
We've discussed the leading alternate proposal optimized canvas (plus js
to
read the exif information) and then get
I've improved the accuracy of the canvas (resize/copy/rotate) perf test:
http://webkit.org/demos/canvas-perf/canvas.html
Here are some results in a similar format to what Mike posted (
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-March/025590.html):
Firefox 3.7a4 (no D2D)
Direct
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Kornel Lesinski kor...@geekhood.netwrote:
JPEG can be efficiently decoded at fraction of its size — without full
decode and scale process. This process also needs only fraction of memory
required for full scaling, which might matter on low-end mobile devices.
Summarizing
We've found that a synchronous solution will likely lead to a bad user
experience. As an alternative, we've presented an async
apihttp://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-May/026292.htmlwhich
solves this frequent use
I believe this has already been addressed in that thread which I guess
you'll get in the next digest.
Now back to getting things done.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Joseph Thomas jthom...@calpoly.edu wrote:
Occasionally, I notice that a single conversation completely dominates
my digest
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Berend-Jan Wever skyli...@chromium.orgwrote:
I ask because I wanted to port an image manipulation script to a WebWorker,
but found out that WebWorkers have no way to use elements such as canvas
and
img.
fwiw, ImageData can be used in a worker. Many folks have
Problem
Although the default search provider may have a significant impact on a
user’s web experience, it isn’t easy for users to set this.
Ideally, a search engine should be able to offer the user the ability to
easily use it as the default. Currently, there are two obstacles to this:
1. The
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.comwrote:
2. When a user decides to use it, they have to follow a set of complex
instructions (http://www.google.com/search?q=switch+default+search+engines
)
Annoying implementation issue.
Shouldn't this api be async?
Returning a blob means that the size is available which implies a sync
operation.
dave
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
Hello All,
Gecko 2.0 ships with a non-standard method on canvas named
mozGetAsFile(contentType, fileName).
Should it also be available in Web Workers?
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Why window.cipher and not just window.crypto?
Adam
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:04 AM, David Dahl dd...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hello WHATWG members,
With user control and
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Jian Li wrote:
I have a couple questions regarding error handling in HTML 5 workers. In
the spec, it says Whenever a runtime script error occurs in one of the
worker's scripts, if the error did not
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, David Levin wrote:
The wording in the Web Workers part of the spec about what to do for
onerror has confused a number of people.
Recently, when asked about it, I thought that it should send through
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Then why add an API when we've already got (IMO superior) declarative
markup?
In the case of adding the API to the spec, because it's already
implemented. As to
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/1/13 2:11 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
How often do we expect two tabs to be talking to each other though?
Or a page to an out-of-process subframe?
How often do we expect MessageChannel to be used at all?
Speaking as
33 matches
Mail list logo
