- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:44 +0200
- To: Bang Seongbeom <bangseongbeom@hotmail.com>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bang Seongbeom <bangseongbeom@hotmail.com> wrote: > The current spec says that the internal worker scope is WorkerGlobalScope(or > Dedi-, Shared-), the external is AbstractWorker(or Worker, Shared-.) But it > destroys consistency with Window object and confuses users with the > difference of WorkerGlobalScope and AbstractWorker. Well, I don't think there's much consistency to be gained since it's quite a bit different. And it's unclear whether consistency with Window would be good, given all its legacy baggage. > The global scope Window object can't access to the other Window object > that's derived from the other origin because of the Same Origin Policy. Like > this, we can restrict the access by it, not to separate the two objects. What object would then use to communicate with the other side? > And it's hard to understand that why can't terminate in WorkerGlobalScope > and can't close in AbstractWorker. These two methods should be provided > equally, or not. Not sure about the rationale for this. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 12:02:11 UTC