I think ‘Worker’ threw me off at first ☺. My original use case was to make the current model of loading components more “local”, as AFAIK, these components can only presently be loaded by code you trust, e.g., via some script library somewhere imported via a <script> tag, or by way of <link rel=import> which pulls in same-origin or CORS-approved cross-origin content.
I hadn’t considered cross-domain components, which is another interesting use-case, I agree. The bit of magic in this proposal that improves on the iframe experience is the SharedWorker-like single instance across related components. Generally speaking, is cross-origin components something that we should be looking to address? The strong isolation is a good model, but very restrictive and not that far-different from iframes IMO. I also can’t help thinking how the discussion of closed vs. open component access relates to cross-origin (or not) components. From: Dimitri Glazkov [mailto:dglaz...@google.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:07 AM To: Anne van Kesteren Cc: Travis Leithead; WebApps WG; Arron Eicholz; Elliott Sprehn Subject: Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows? On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl<mailto:ann...@annevk.nl>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com<mailto:dglaz...@google.com>> wrote: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7ci1-lBTY6AJxgN99aCMwjZKCjKv1v3y_7WLtcgM00/edit?pli=1 That seems really cool. I'm not sure worker is the right terminology since at the moment worker sort of implies there's no node tree available due to the complexity that would give. But an isolated global for a set of reusable components that are mixed into the document seems roughly in line with what we have with <input> et al today. Agree. :DG<