- From: Jake Archibald <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:54:03 -0800
- To: w3c/ServiceWorker <ServiceWorker@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1021/266708110@github.com>
Very interesting @jungkees! Here's an expanded test: https://gist.github.com/jakearchibald/060ae42e4153837b9d9dc61e3053c975, and live demo https://cdn.rawgit.com/jakearchibald/060ae42e4153837b9d9dc61e3053c975/raw/f35e2207650f3b3307a1403ae03208c6965527c9/. Results: | Test | Spec | Firefox | Chrome | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Root import (first run) | Download, execute & cache | As spec'd | As spec'd | | Root import (later runs) | Fetch from cache & execute | As spec'd | As spec'd | | Install event import | Download, execute & cache | Downloads, executes, but does not cache | As spec'd | | Uncached fetch event import | Throw error | Fetch from network | Fetch from network | So I withdraw "I'm happy for us to align the spec with browsers for importScripts", since the browsers aren't particularly aligned. Also, allowing synchronous network fetches in functional events (which both browsers do) seems like a really bad idea. Aligning to the spec seems like a better idea. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1021#issuecomment-266708110
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 10:54:35 UTC