W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

From: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:29:18 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTince5ocgd0of_pbtxyiApnZgs7bQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies
> the "ports" argument to postMessage as an array of objects to
> transfer, in such a way that we:
>

Array or object? (by object I mean: {transfer: [arrayBuffer1], ports:
[port]})


>
>  - Maintain 100% backward compatibility
>  - Enhance the ability to pass MessagePorts, so that the object graph
> can refer to them as well
>  - Allow more object types to participate in transfer of ownership in the
> future
>
> To the best of my knowledge there are no active points of
> disagreement. I think we are only waiting for general consensus from
> all interested parties that this is the desired step to take.
>
> If it is, I would be happy to draft proposed edits to the associated
> specs; there are several, and the edits may be somewhat involved. I'd
> also be happy to share the work with Ian or anyone else.
>
> I don't know the various processes for web specs, but the Web
> Messaging spec will definitely need to be updated if we decide to move
> in this direction.
>
> -Ken
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
> wrote:
> > Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if
> the
> > participants would please summarize where they think we are on this
> issue,
> > e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move forward, etc.
> >
> > Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if my
> > premature subject change caused any confusion or problems), since we have
> an
> > open CfC (ends June 9 [1]) to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web
> > Messaging, is the Messaging spec going 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
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 21:30:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT