- From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:26:18 -0700
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap at webkit.org> wrote: > > Letting faceless background processes update themselves without user > consent is not necessarily desirable. I think that they need browser UI for > this, and/or associated HTML configuration pages that could (among other > duties) trigger application cache update. > I'd be curious about why you think this is a problem, especially given the existence of importScripts() and XHR which allow workers to load scripts dynamically anyway. ApplicationCache for persistent workers would enable them to continue running even when offline - I don't see that it introduces any new security/permission wrinkles, though. If you don't provide something like that, then you'll have workers doing things like using XHR to download script, store it in the data store, then eval() it at load time to roll their own manual offline support. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090326/36eb1413/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 09:26:18 UTC