- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 22:11:18 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27980 --- Comment #3 from Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com> --- There is much to consider. Step 3.2 in my proposed solution in comment #1 is bad because step 3.2 can run prior to any possible abort of (or even start of the asynch range removal). Further, there is this discussion (https://github.com/w3ctag/promises-guide/issues/31) about precise usage of "in parallel" instead of asynchronous. To date, I had understood all the steps in the spec were executed on the same thread (or at least serialized to that single thread in an implementation prior to the next step); this may not be the case for spec text going forward. Jerry and I are working to find a better solution. For instance, I'm trying to understand why Remove() was made asynch/parallel in the first place, and can we refactor the DurationChange-triggered version of range removal to be synchronous, if not also making all of Remove() synchronous? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:11:23 UTC