[Bug 7386] SharedWorkerGlobalScope

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7386


Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mjs@apple.com
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |




--- Comment #4 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2010-01-11 22:38:31 ---
Reopening for fresh consideration. It seems to me that it would be easy to
rewrite the relevant sections to avoid mention of SharedWorkerGlobalScope, by
putting some of the relevant requirements in the Web Workers spec.

Instead of this: "A cache host is a Document or a SharedWorkerGlobalScope
object. A cache host can be associated with an application cache. [WEBWORKERS]"

You could say "A cache host is the object that maintains an association to an
ApplicationCache. Document objects are cache hosts. Other specifications may
allow other objects to act as cache hosts."

Then Web Workers could say: "For purposes of the HTML5 Application Cache, a
SharedWorkerGlobalScope object is a cache host. [HTML5]"


This could just go right in Web Workers: "A SharedWorkerGlobalScope can be
associated with an application cache when it is created. [WEBWORKERS]"

This could also go right in Web Workers: "The applicationCache attribute on
SharedWorkerGlobalScope objects must return the ApplicationCache object
associated with the worker. [WEBWORKERS]"

These are the only 3 normative references to WEBWORKERS in HTML5, as far as I
can tell. Fixing these up in the way I suggested would make HTML5 no longer
depend on Web Workers, thus removing a reference cycle. It seems to me like
this is a significant editorial improvement. It would also be one less thing to
deal with through the issue process.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 22:38:33 UTC