Re: Workers v2

Thanks for the clarification :-) It shouldn't be dificult, specially for
DataChannels: WebWorkers has already support for WebSockets and their API
is the same (and the security context fairly similar...). I agree on let
this discussion to the WebRTC group.

Send from my Samsung Galaxy Note II
El 11/12/2013 22:18, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> escribió:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >  - Canvas in Workers
> > >    There's been various proposals, including one in the spec that
> hasn't
> > >    met with implementor approval; I'm waiting for something to get
> > >    traction amongst the competing proposals.
> > >
> > >  - Being clearer about what features are visible in workers
> > >    Blocked on: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22646
> >
> > I have proposed several times about allowing to create PeerConnection
> > and DataChannel objects from inside a Worker, don't know if that request
> > falls into the "what features are visible " topic or if it's a special
> > case like the canvas...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/-bOW_hhs28E
>
> It's in the "what features are visible" topic, unless there's anything
> specific about the API that needs changing in workers.
>
> As far as the WebRTC stuff goes, though, I'll let the WebRTC group decide
> what should happen. The issue of being clearer about what features are
> visible in workers is mostly about getting some IDL-level keyword that we
> can use to make it easier to specify (right now it can be done but has to
> be done in prose, and I haven't been consistent about it in my specs).
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>