- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:59:37 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > I do not think there is a problem with providing self.cookie in > > workers, exposing the cookie of the script. However, currently there > > doesn't seem to be much support for this. > > > > What do other browser vendors think of this? > > > > Jonas, given the above information regarding IE's behaviour, do you > > still think that providing such an API in workers is a problem? > > It's the vendors that have exposed their users to this inconsistency > that you should ask. Or maybe sites that use document.cookie a lot and > that have a lot of chrome or IE8 users. Though both of those browsers > might be too new to have received a lot of feedback regarding this. Note > that this is only really a problem on sites that modifies > document.cookie a lot, and where users have multiple tabs open to the > same site. > > Personally I don't see how this couldn't be a problem. The only thing > that'd save us is that cookies are generally not heavily used. But I bet > there are sites out there that do use document.cookie a lot. The question isn't whether or not we should have locking for cookies, the spec does have locking for cookies now. The question is whether we should have the ability to grab this lock from a worker and change the cookie there. I haven't added this ability, because it seems that Mozilla is against it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 21:59:37 UTC