W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: On starting WebWorkers with blob: URLs...

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:39:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-C_10o_ss418kp-pP5WQVJY4CPWi8GavmnUZSAUAF9uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
For what its worth, since then mozilla has implemented shared workers. I
think they are in Aurora currently and reaching beta next week.

So I believe we fulfill the two-implementations requirement.

/ Jonas
On Mar 10, 2014 12:08 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

> On 2/19/14 7:09 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Travis Leithead
>> <travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like our specs are getting a little behind implementations. In
>>> IE11 we are finding that several new sites, notably those using WebGL
>>> content, have a dependency on starting web workers with a Blob URL. As I
>>> understand it:
>>>
>>> The W3C Web Workers spec (CR stage) forbids use of the data and
>>> [implicitly] blob protocols
>>> The WHATWG HTML spec (Living stage) allows data protocol, but not blob.
>>> Implementations of Firefox and Chrome support blob protocols
>>>
>>> 1. Seems like a spec should say this somewhere...
>>>
>> Agreed! It's a bit tricky since the concept of origins and thus "same
>> origin" for data: and blob: is a bit unclear still. I.e. browsers
>> don't behave consistently. Definitely not between each other, and
>> sometimes not internally within a browser IIRC.
>>
>>  2. In the W3C where would we spec this? (Workers V2?)
>>>
>> I care less strongly about this. There's also the synchronous message
>> passing API which I'd still like to see added to the workers spec.
>>
>
> In addition to the changes mentioned above, during our TPAC 2013 meeting,
> we also talked briefly about a version of Workers that does not include
> Shared Workers [Mins].
>
> I'm not opposed to working on a new version of Workers but I think it
> would be helpful to get the group's consensus re the plans and expectations
> for the Dec 2012 [CR].
>
> The interop data James gathered in [James] is certainly more promising
> than the interop data in [Wiki] but James data does not include IE. As
> such, it's not clear to me what level of interop we have now for the 4 main
> browsers, nor if we have sufficient commitments from implementers to
> eventually exit CR (and if so, our best guestimate on when we can expect to
> meet the CR exit criteria).
>
> -AB
>
> [Mins] <http://www.w3.org/2013/11/12-webapps-minutes.html#item08>
> [CR] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-workers-20120501/>
> [Wiki] <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers>
> [James] <http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html>
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 19:39:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:22 UTC