W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2012

Re: [whatwg] Declarative web worker creation and communication?

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:24:33 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W207ECA3296A6889DA9C1E40AA640@phx.gbl>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Hi Simon,

The use I have in mind is a work-in-progress, see: http://www.w3.org/community/pua/wiki/Draft#Examples

However the HTML standard already permits a UA to disable JS, and there is the iframe sandbox, or CSP, or browser extensions, to disable JS.  I would like to make any extensions as widely applicable as possible in the hope of building support for them, and think there is a good case for a web application with document JS disabled that can still communicate with web workers to implement AJAX style designs.

The aim is not to work around JS being disabled, but to allow web pages to be designed with document JS disabled that still support a lot of features that are currently handled by the document JS.

After giving it some more thought it would seem best to add new attributes for communication with web workers so that the existing attributes could implement a backup using a HTTP request - this might help support backwards compatibility or allow content to degrade gracefully if web workers are not supported.  For example, if a form is declared to be submitted to a web work via a message post then it could also have a backup 'method' and 'action' to make a HTTP request to a server.

The best path for supporting DOM updates from received web worker messages is not so clear to me.  Perhaps an iframe, or a more general element extension that allows an innerHTML update to be received from web worker messages and perhaps from server sent events.

cheers
Fred

> To: whatwg@whatwg.org; fredandw@live.com
...
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:29:10 +0200, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:
...
> > 1. Declarative web worker creation.
> >
> > Feedback and suggestions for appropriate markup to declare web workers
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > The use case is a document with JS disabled or restricted so that it can  not
> > create web workers, yet still wants to create web workers to process page
> > input and to update the document.
> 
> Can you give some concrete examples where JS is disabled or restricted?
> 
> -- 
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
 		 	   		  
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 09:25:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT