I still don't see how exposing an API via MessagePorts is in any way better than exposing an API via WebIDL. Can you describe with concrete examples how this makes life better for implementors or authors? I've read your presentation but I did not see the answer there. Furthermore I don't see any necessary connection between MessagePorts vs WebIDL and the issues around rapidly bringing experimental APIs to the Web. Are you claiming that it's quicker and easier to add MesagePort-based APIs to browsers than using WebIDL? Rob -- oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o oioso oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 20:28:56 UTC