Nikhil Marathe nikhilm

@nikhilm
Move permission check to main body of showNotification()
@nikhilm
Step 2 and 3 of showNotification can be swapped
@nikhilm
Clients.claim() does not deal with a client already controlled by another registration
@nikhilm

*: some browsers have a back-forward cache (a.k.a. fastback) feature like https://wiki.mozilla.org/DocShell:Fastback - in such cases navigation do…

nikhilm commented on issue whatwg/fetch#26
@nikhilm

yes. we could request uplift to aurora

nikhilm commented on issue w3c/push-api#133
@nikhilm

On further thinking this should probably be JSON json() similar to fetch spec's interface Body's Promise json() method, where JSON is typedef object.

nikhilm opened issue w3c/push-api#133
@nikhilm
Nit: Any -> any
nikhilm commented on pull request nikhilm/uvbook#58
@nikhilm

Thanks @BluByte

@nikhilm
nikhilm merged pull request nikhilm/uvbook#58
@nikhilm
Fixed potential overflow in run_command function
1 commit with 1 addition and 1 deletion
nikhilm commented on issue whatwg/fetch#23
@nikhilm

Are you saying step 11 can be skipped because the response returned from the SW will already be filtered due to SW being able to obtain a filtered …

@nikhilm
www.dailymotion.com - see bug description
nikhilm opened issue whatwg/fetch#24
@nikhilm
Prevent modifying headers on Responses
nikhilm commented on pull request c-das/jswc#1
@nikhilm

Ok that makes sense. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Chitharanjan Das notifications@github.com wrote: Even so, I'm looking at it this way: I'll u…

nikhilm commented on pull request c-das/jswc#1
@nikhilm

Thanks! I didn't know about valueOf before either. For this problem it was pretty obvious that I had to use some form of arguments array abuse and …

nikhilm commented on pull request c-das/jswc#1
@nikhilm

note that using the form assert.equals(add(2)(5), 7) will fail

nikhilm commented on pull request c-das/jswc#1
@nikhilm

note that using the form assert.equals(add(2,5), 7) will fail

nikhilm opened pull request c-das/jswc#1
@nikhilm
Solution
1 commit with 31 additions and 0 deletions
nikhilm created branch week1 at nikhilm/jswc
@nikhilm
Byte by byte match does not capture developer friendly behaviour
@nikhilm

The reason they've done this is to "keep the update check really small". I'm not a fan of this as etags are a better fit, but it is what devs are …

@nikhilm

@nikhilm in your example, what's the benefit of the import vs just including the script? Well this was meant as a pathological example. The inten…

@nikhilm

Note that this adds side effects. Detecting importScripts() will require running the worker, so any mutation code inside the SW that is not in an e…

@nikhilm
Byte by byte match does not capture developer friendly behaviour
@nikhilm
When exactly during unload does "Handle Service Worker Client Unload
@nikhilm
ServiceWorker to "service worker" mapping and stability
nikhilm commented on pull request github/fetch#86
@nikhilm

I'm not sure why the travis build failed. I won't be able to fix this until next week, so feel free to steal.