W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2010

[whatwg] Inline Web Worker

From: Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:49:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinKNQJVVsg8R8z6=2simRTLrnQiR76jhas-2NPX@mail.gmail.com>
How about using a Blob URL?  See the discussion here:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-html5/tree/browse_frm/thread/4288931009182422/12703ab802469702.

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Ytterbrink <samuel at ytterbrink.nu> wrote:
>
> Hi I have found?something?really?frustrating?with the specs. to show that I
> at least?read the blog about proposing features here is the questions and
> answers:
>
> What is the problem you are trying to solve?
> To create?sophisticated?single file webpages.
> What is the feature you are suggesting to help solve it?
> Some sort of inline Web Worker.?Using?Data URL is what i have in mind or by
> creating a class.
> What is the processing model for that feature, including error handling?
> This should be very clear, including things such as event timing if the
> feature involves events, how to create graphs representing the data in the
> case of semantic proposals, etc.
> Well the same as for other URLs, except that it inherit its location
> information from its creator.
> Why do you think browsers would implement this feature?
> To make standalone local webpages easier to be used by users. And in some
> cases faster dl of large pages.
> Why do you think authors would use this feature?
> Webpages are more then just information, its programs. Programs in one file
> is easier to have. And also for testing quick things, inline is a?Bliss.
> What evidence is there that this feature is desparately needed?
> I only have my own, trying to build a more optimal standalone DAISY player
> (would be nice if i could rewrite it with web workers). And that google
> gears seems to support it.
>
> So is this a totally bad idea?
> //Samuel Ytterbrink
> p.s. hope i posted it in the correct Mailing list. and that my spelling
> isn't that bad.
>
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 15:49:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:01 UTC