- From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:14:23 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Le 14/05/2013 15:03, Boris Zbarsky a écrit : > On 5/14/13 9:04 AM, David Bruant wrote: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013AprJun/0167.html >> > > I should note that the description of the browser event loop in that > message is wrong. It does not have only two FIFO queues in the specs, > or in implementations. In particular, see task sources. I will. This part is quite dense and complicated but important especially with the upcoming ES7 work on the event loop to make sure it is sufficiently low-level to implement (in spec and/or code) the browser event loop model. > I would be strongly opposed to specifying something that requires only > two FIFO queues. I have to admit that the idea of forging in ES7 the "2 nested event loops" model seems that it may rule out valuable use cases. I would be in favor of some spec freedom here in the message ordering/reordering policy. Let's see where this go. Thanks for your message, David
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 14:15:04 UTC