- From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:27:31 -0700
That suggestion has also been floating around in some internal discussions.
I'd have to objections to this approach either, although I'm not familiar
enough with URL semantics to know if this is a valid use of URL fragments.
-atw
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a "url" parameter and a "name"
> > parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using
> the
> > same script resource without having to load separate resources from the
> > server.
>
> > [ request that name be scoped to the URL, rather than the entire origin,
> > because not all parts of example.com can easily co-ordinate.]
>
> Would there be a problem with using URL fragments to distinguish the
> workers?
>
> Instead of:
> new SharedWorker("url.js", "name");
>
> Use
> new SharedWorker("url.js#name");
> and if you want a duplicate, call it
> new SharedWorker("url.js#name2");
>
> The normal semantics of fragments should prevent the repeated server fetch.
>
> -jJ
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090816/ee9dba58/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 08:27:31 UTC