- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:09:48 -0400
- To: Sigbjorn Finne <sof@opera.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 3/24/15 3:52 PM, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
> Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv:
>> On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur
>>> Barstow<art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2.<http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html>; this
>>>> test
>>>> failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
>>>> (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)
>>>> that
>>>> is expected to be fixed.
>>> I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers "a
>>> bug". Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
>>> an API work off the main thread.
>>>
>>> That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
>>> now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
>>> soon.
>>
>> Thanks for this info Jonas.
>>
>> My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the
>> main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or
>> someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second
>> implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that
>> at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in
>> progress.
>>
>> Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes
>> and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving
>> this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your
>> position a "formal objection"?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome
> canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.
>
> (Fixes for
> http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html
> should appear overnight also.)
>
> hth
Yes, that is indeed helpful. Thanks Sigbjorn!
-ArtB
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 00:10:16 UTC