- From: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:33:34 -0700
- To: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
I prefer continuing to use an array for several reasons: simpler
syntax, better type checking at the Web IDL level, and fewer
ECMAScript-specific semantics.
-Ken
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:29 PM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies
>> the "ports" argument to postMessage as an array of objects to
>> transfer, in such a way that we:
>
> Array or object? (by object I mean: {transfer: [arrayBuffer1], ports:
> [port]})
>
>>
>> - Maintain 100% backward compatibility
>> - Enhance the ability to pass MessagePorts, so that the object graph
>> can refer to them as well
>> - Allow more object types to participate in transfer of ownership in the
>> future
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge there are no active points of
>> disagreement. I think we are only waiting for general consensus from
>> all interested parties that this is the desired step to take.
>>
>> If it is, I would be happy to draft proposed edits to the associated
>> specs; there are several, and the edits may be somewhat involved. I'd
>> also be happy to share the work with Ian or anyone else.
>>
>> I don't know the various processes for web specs, but the Web
>> Messaging spec will definitely need to be updated if we decide to move
>> in this direction.
>>
>> -Ken
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if
>> > the
>> > participants would please summarize where they think we are on this
>> > issue,
>> > e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move forward, etc.
>> >
>> > Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if my
>> > premature subject change caused any confusion or problems), since we
>> > have an
>> > open CfC (ends June 9 [1]) to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web
>> > Messaging, is the Messaging spec going to need to change to address the
>> > issues raised in this thread?
>> >
>> > -Art Barstow
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0797.html
>> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 21:33:59 UTC