On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
I'm saying that we should differentiate between the closed state and
cloned state. Implementors effectively need to do this anyway, because
the spec says that closed ports are still task sources, while cloned
ports are not.
It makes sense to be
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
Following up on this issue:
Currently, the checks specified for MessagePort.postMessage() are different
from the checks done in window.postMessage() (as described in section 7.2.4
Posting messages with message ports).
In particular, step 4 of section
I'm saying that we should differentiate between the closed state and
cloned state.
Implementors effectively need to do this anyway, because the spec says that
closed ports are still task sources, while cloned ports are not.
It makes sense to be able to post closed ports via postmessage() because
Following up on this issue:
Currently, the checks specified for MessagePort.postMessage() are different
from the checks done in window.postMessage() (as described in section 7.2.4
Posting messages with message ports).
In particular, step 4 of section 7.2.4 says:
If any of the entries in ports are
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
I'd like to suggest that we allow sending ports that are not entangled
(i.e. ports that have been closed)
Done.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\
