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: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:26:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4DF601F3.4010700@nokia.com>
To: ext Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
CC: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, David Levin <levin@chromium.org>, 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 Jun/8/2011 5:24 PM, ext Kenneth Russell 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:
>
>   - 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.

Concrete proposals should be helpful and it may make sense to first use 
Bugzilla to capture the related issues for the various specs.

(If there are any access issues with Bugzilla, Mike Smith or I can help 
with that.)

-AB
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 12:27:11 GMT

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