W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

[Bug 14116] New: Regarding a previous post, a browser could launch itself (CreateProcess() on Windows) again and pass say a port number, a URL, and a boolean flag to the spawned child process. The browser could then be modified to examine it's command line- if there are 3

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:21:31 +0000
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-14116-2927@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14116

           Summary: Regarding a previous post, a browser could launch
                    itself (CreateProcess() on Windows) again and pass say
                    a port number, a URL, and a boolean flag to the
                    spawned child process. The browser could then be
                    modified to examine it's command line- if there are 3
           Product: WebAppsWG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: Web Workers (editor: Ian Hickson)
        AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
        ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org
         QAContact: member-webapi-cvs@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org


Specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110901/
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#top
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#top

Comment:
Regarding a previous post, a browser could launch itself (CreateProcess() on
Windows) again and pass say a port number, a URL, and a boolean flag to the
spawned child process.

The browser could then be modified to examine it's command line- if there are
3 arguments it will open the URL.  If the boolean flag is false, it will not
draw anything to the screen.  And it will listen to the port for messages from
the spawning process.  A simple string passing protocol could be implemented
on that port with appropriate security.  

This seems fairly straightforward to implement in any browser.

Another issue with removing the DOM is it requires more custom code for a
script to load dependent scripts (the importScripts()).  So my script
libraries now have 2 paths.  If there is a DOM, add <script> tags to load
dependent JS files, else use importScripts().

I would argue that DOM removal and present spec introduces more work and
complications than my proposal (obviously I am biased :)).  It also introduces
yet another issue in that scripts must be designed to work in different
contexts (ie with and without a DOM). 


Posted from: 199.89.158.132
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/6.0.2

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 12:21:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT