- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:12:38 -0700
Allowing both blob URLs and data URLs for workers sounds like a great idea. / Jonas On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Eric Uhrhane <ericu at google.com> wrote: > How about using a Blob URL? ?See the discussion here: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-html5/tree/browse_frm/thread/4288931009182422/12703ab802469702. > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Ytterbrink <samuel at ytterbrink.nu> wrote: >> >> Hi I have found?something?really?frustrating?with the specs. to show that I >> at least?read the blog about proposing features here is the questions and >> answers: >> >> What is the problem you are trying to solve? >> To create?sophisticated?single file webpages. >> What is the feature you are suggesting to help solve it? >> Some sort of inline Web Worker.?Using?Data URL is what i have in mind or by >> creating a class. >> What is the processing model for that feature, including error handling? >> This should be very clear, including things such as event timing if the >> feature involves events, how to create graphs representing the data in the >> case of semantic proposals, etc. >> Well the same as for other URLs, except that it inherit its location >> information from its creator. >> Why do you think browsers would implement this feature? >> To make standalone local webpages easier to be used by users. And in some >> cases faster dl of large pages. >> Why do you think authors would use this feature? >> Webpages are more then just information, its programs. Programs in one file >> is easier to have. And also for testing quick things, inline is a?Bliss. >> What evidence is there that this feature is desparately needed? >> I only have my own, trying to build a more optimal standalone DAISY player >> (would be nice if i could rewrite it with web workers). And that google >> gears seems to support it. >> >> So is this a totally bad idea? >> //Samuel Ytterbrink >> p.s. hope i posted it in the correct Mailing list. and that my spelling >> isn't that bad. >> >
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 18:12:38 UTC