On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, smaug wrote: > I don't understand how 1) could be implemented when the spec has left the key > piece undefined, as far as I see. > As the spec puts it "This specification does not describe how such a port is > made available to RP web pages, as this is (for now) implementation and > browser dependent. "
Um, that's fairly standard for specs. The spec defines the interface, as well as the observable behaviours of that interface. How that interface is implemented is up to the UA. For example, Chrome "implements" the interface by allowing extensions to inject JS into pages, and allowing said JS to communicate back to the extension ( see https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/messaging ). A future, 'native' implementation in Chrome could, rather than using extension, directly expose the IDL via the navigator interface, which then exposes a JS MessagePort that fulfills the contract. The text you cite is by no means proof of an 'incomplete' spec - rather, it's standard spec sauce, the same way that, say, WebGL doesn't say "You must use NVidia driver 3.0 or later, and only on Intel machines" - it says "This is the API of WebGL - you can implement it however you wish, so long as you abide by this contract" _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
