[whatwg] Application defined "locks"
darin at chromium.org
Wed Sep 9 21:11:36 PDT 2009
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Darin Fisher <darin at chromium.org> wrote:
>> What concerns me are the cases where synchronous events (e.g., resizing an
>> iframe) can cause script to execute in another domain. As spec'd, there is
>> a potential dead lock with the storage mutex. We must carefully unlock in
>> situations like this. However, such unlocking will appear quite mysterious
>> to users, so much so that I question the value of the implicit storage
> Right now I'm not sure how big a problem this actually is. The resize event
> for a document in a frame can surely be dispatched asynchronously so no
> unlocking is required. I would like to have a much better idea of how many
> places absolutely must release the storage mutex before deciding that
> approach is unworkable.
What about navigating an iframe to a reference fragment, which could trigger
a scroll event? The scrolling has to be done synchronously for compat with
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg