- From: Domenic Denicola <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:42:34 -0700
- To: w3c/ServiceWorker <ServiceWorker@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 21:43:04 UTC
In https://codereview.chromium.org/2416843002/ I was made aware that this proposal introduces a nullable promise type into the IDL. I guess `navigationPreload` is supposed to be specced as a `Promise<Response>?`. We are actually hoping to outlaw that from Web IDL entirely: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25049 Can someone summarize why a nullable promise type is needed? I don't see any IDL in this issue, and I can't even see anyone proposing `navigationPreload` as a promise for Response, much less a nullable one, so maybe there is just some confusion going around. -- 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/920#issuecomment-255874864
Received on Monday, 24 October 2016 21:43:04 UTC