- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Drew Wilson wrote: > > Do we still need the concept of a "protected" worker? We define what a > protected worker is, but we don't actually reference that definition > anywhere in the spec anymore, since active needed/permissible status is > entirely driven by the existence of active/inactive documents. [...] > > [active needed worker] > > It sounds like the worker is guaranteed to not be orphaned as long as > the parent window is active, even if the user agent is able to identify > that the worker is not reachable, which might be a stronger guarantee > than was intended. Perhaps the spec already has an implicit assumption > that UAs are able to do whatever they want with unreachable items? Woops, these two problems are actually the same problem. The reference to "active needed worker" in the orphaning clause was meant to be "protected worker". Fixed. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 14:28:20 UTC