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

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> Well, for data: URLs what's normative might be: 
> but sadly that's not really 
> clear (what's "host" here?).

data: "does not use a hierarchical element as a naming authority" and thus 
its origin is "a fresh globally unique identifier".

> For blob: URLs we agreed to make this pretty explicit: 

Unfortunately, scripts don't have origins these days, so this definition 
doesn't really work.

However, something along these lines would be fine by me, and would mean 
that blob:s work fine in Workers without any changes to the Workers spec.

> >> 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.
> IMHO it makes sense in Workers V2.

Workers are currently at v8541, for the record. :-)

The canonical spec for workers is not a W3C spec, it's the WHATWG one:

Assuming things are still working, this should be the same prose but with 
the W3C letterhead (and some subtly broken cross-references since it 
doesn't include the rest of the spec):

As is normal, the TR/ spec for workers is woefully out of date at this 

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 22:55:21 UTC