Publish minutes of 2021-12-09 meeting #141
Conversation
|
Was #133 not on the agenda? |
Apparently not. But we didn't have enough time to get through all points that were on the agenda. But #133 is about functionality that's lost if background pages were to be replaced with a service worker with a limited lifetime. Note: if you'd like to discuss the specifics of #133, just post in #133; it's not necessary to wait for the video meetings to participate in the discussion. |
_minutes/2021-12-09-wecg.md
Outdated
| * [tomislav] Disagree with viewpoint, it makes transitioning harder. Our plans are to support APIs in MV2 where possible. | ||
| * [timothy] Safari also has that philosophy. We'll also support service workers in MV2. | ||
| * [devlin] For this reason we support service workers and DNR in MV2 in Chrome. Some other APIs have a less drastic migration and are more utilities than dramatic replacement features, e.g. the action API replaces the browserAction API and is not supported in MV2 because migration is straightforward. | ||
| * [rob] Firefox develops new features restricted to MV3, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Rob--W, looks like we only got the first half of your thought. Do you recall what the second half was?
_minutes/2021-12-09-wecg.md
Outdated
| [Issue 93](https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/93): Support i18n.getMessage API in serviceWorker | ||
|
|
||
| * [carlos] Simeon mentioned in the past that there are issues with this method that may require design changes. Can you clarify? | ||
| * [devlin] An issue with the implementation is that it's synchronous. [spoke to Chrome implementation details related to process responsibility and message passing] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * [devlin] An issue with the implementation is that it's synchronous. [spoke to Chrome implementation details related to process responsibility and message passing] | |
| * [devlin] An issue with the implementation is that it's synchronous. [spoke to Chrome implementation details related to process responsibility, message passing between processes, challenges in supporting synchronous responses, and use cases that currently require synchronous responses] |
I don't recall Devlin's comment with much specific detail, but I think this captures the essence of what he said a little more accurately.
Rob--W
force-pushed
the
meeting-2021-12-09
branch
from
add3df5
to
445963d
Compare
|
Thanks for the review @dotproto! I have updated the PR, the diff is at https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/compare/add3df59d4e9fd5c9f6cd2f454298319ad63a5f9..445963dd60096b64da4adf571b2d29b5961e970a |
Generated from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkwhEMtMS67JBUkl_WVPZ4lRSKoWcQNlLJSf_GwSXg8/edit using the tool and process from #105.
During this meeting we discussed or mentioned #134, #120, #93 and #118. Although added to the agenda, we did not have enough time to discuss #113 and #115.