W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Integrating with the event loop

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:26:18 +0200
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5EBCAFED-4FD1-46B8-A8AE-DAB67EF3234B@berjon.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Sep 22, 2010, at 21:40 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:47:18 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>> What I can't seem to figure out is what is the criterion one uses to decide whether describing one's process in event loop terms is useful/necessary, and when it's optional. My first reaction was asynchronicity, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient.
> 
> I think the Geolocation API ought to have integrated with it as well. It probably works because it is fairly predictable how it ought to integrate, but that does not make it well defined. For instance http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/#clear-watch makes it seem as if currently queued tasks still ought to be processed if they are in the queue, but I somewhat doubt that is the intent or matches what is implemented.

Right, so there's a bug in Geo and the criterion is "pretty much anything async" as we originally thought. Thanks!

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 15:27:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:19 UTC