<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Michael Davidson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mpd@google.com">mpd@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
These are true, but leave out the part that rewriting large apps to<br>
the worker API is nontrivial. A major advantage of a hidden page (as<br>
you mention below) is that the programming model is well known, and<br>
easy for web developers to adapt to.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know enough about this specific case to comment, but in general I am scared of arguments like "Model A would be better, but right now people are using something closer to model B" because it can enshrine for all eternity something that browsers have to support, based on what people happen to be good at at the moment.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">- As for persistence beyond browser lifetime, I understand the<br>
reticence. However, similar problems have been solved in the past.<br>
Flash asks the user for access to hardware like cameras. Surely being<br>
able to take pictures of users is as scary as running code after the<br>
browser has closed.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not at all. Malware can't set up a darknet using cameras. Your CPU, disk and RAM are much more valuable to a malicious coder than your camera.</div><div><br></div>
<div>The rest of your argument may still be true, I'm just not convinced by this analogy.</div><div><br></div><div>PK</div></div>