Re: Shadow DOM spec for v1 is ready to be reviewed

[Hayato Ito]

Thank you for the feedback! Let me take a look at the filed issues. I
really appreciate it.
It looks  https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/308 is the only
conceptual problem. I think I can send "Intent to Implement: Shadow DOM v1"
in Blink soon. :)

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:43 AM Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:

> Thanks for the update!
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:33 PM, Hayato Ito  wrote:
>
> Let me post a quick update for the Shadow DOM spec:
> https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/
> 
>
> I've almost done the spec work for Shadow DOM v1. I think it's time to be
> reviewed and get feedback. I hope that a browser vendor, including me, can
> start to implement it based on the current spec.
>
> You might want to use https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/289
> 
> to give me feedback. Please feel free to file a new issue if preferred.
>
>
> I've filed a bunch of editorial issues.
>
> One conceptual problem I have with the current spec is how it "unwrap"
> nested slots.  I thought we had a consensus not to do this at F2F?
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/308 tracks this particular
> issue.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
>

Re: Shadow DOM spec for v1 is ready to be reviewed

[Ryosuke Niwa]

Thanks for the update!

> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:33 PM, Hayato Ito  wrote:
> 
> Let me post a quick update for the Shadow DOM spec: 
> https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/ 
> 
> 
> I've almost done the spec work for Shadow DOM v1. I think it's time to be 
> reviewed and get feedback. I hope that a browser vendor, including me, can 
> start to implement it based on the current spec.
> 
> You might want to use https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/289 
> 
>  to give me feedback. Please feel free to file a new issue if preferred.

I've filed a bunch of editorial issues.

One conceptual problem I have with the current spec is how it "unwrap" nested 
slots.  I thought we had a consensus not to do this at F2F?  
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/308 
 tracks this particular issue.

- R. Niwa

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

[Ryosuke Niwa]

> On Sep 1, 2015, at 7:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>> I think you’re missing the point.  The point of these documentation is to 
>> know exactly what the patch author was looking at the time he wrote the 
>> patch.  If there was a typo in the spec, that’s an important information.
>> 
>> As for diff’ing what has changed, that’s exactly the use case.  In order to 
>> know what has changed, you need to know what the old spec was.  The living 
>> standard is a total nightmare as far as I’m concerned.
> 
> I guess it depends on your workflow. In any event, does what Domenic
> suggests and has implemented for 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__streams.spec.whatwg.org_&d=BQIFaQ&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=051zrPFUkWGMfGlKdhy9Uw&m=dmgoI6lEFOWkspvfnnlq-RxpY4jfiiozATV5kFegnFY&s=UcHS2fRzjPxSXuZZ0gQQs5xb3C-Ct3peVtowrZdxoUE&e=
>  
> address your concern?

Yes!  It totally does.

- R. Niwa

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> I think you’re missing the point.  The point of these documentation is to 
> know exactly what the patch author was looking at the time he wrote the 
> patch.  If there was a typo in the spec, that’s an important information.
>
> As for diff’ing what has changed, that’s exactly the use case.  In order to 
> know what has changed, you need to know what the old spec was.  The living 
> standard is a total nightmare as far as I’m concerned.

I guess it depends on your workflow. In any event, does what Domenic
suggests and has implemented for https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/
address your concern?


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

[Ryosuke Niwa]

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Anne van Kesteren  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>> Let's say we implement some feature based on Web IDL published as of today.  
>> I'm going to refer that in my source code commit message.  Future readers of 
>> my code has no idea what I was implementing when they look at my commit 
>> message in five years if it refers to the living standard that changes over 
>> time.
> 
> Apart from what Domenic said, IDs should remain stable over time and
> other than features getting expanded, they need to remain backwards
> compatible, just as your code base. (It also seems like useful
> information to know what you've implemented has been refactored or
> changed in some way in the corresponding standard, so you can take
> steps to update your code.)

I think you’re missing the point.  The point of these documentation is to know 
exactly what the patch author was looking at the time he wrote the patch.  If 
there was a typo in the spec, that’s an important information.

As for diff’ing what has changed, that’s exactly the use case.  In order to 
know what has changed, you need to know what the old spec was.  The living 
standard is a total nightmare as far as I’m concerned.

- R. Niwa

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

[Yves Lafon]

> On 01 Sep 2015, at 14:27, Ms2ger  wrote:
> 
> Hi Yves,
> 
> On 09/01/2015 11:30 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 20:12, Ms2ger  wrote:
>>> On 08/31/2015 03:28 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:
 In fact, I would prefer to have the editors’ copy published as 
 TR/WebIDL/, and let -1 -2 … -n be pointers to the stable version
 (aka, what is implemented, not what has to be implemented).
 
>>> 
>>> Who do you propose will construct such a "what is implemented" 
>>> specification, and what useful work would you have them drop for
>>> it?
>>> 
>> 
>> Well, we need tests, of course. There is a test suite that needs to
>> be checked again, and lots of other specs have tests that actually
>> test parts of WebIDL. So apart from new functionalities that don’t
>> have test yet (and may by mean of other specs testing those), most of
>> the work is to gather existing tests, and I am ready to help on that.
>> So I don’t ask anyone to stop doing their usual job, especially as it
>> can also help here. Of course people reviewing tests is always a nice
>> feature, as you know.
>> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your point. Tests will need to be written and
> reviewed, whether "what is implemented" specifications are published or
> not. My question is specifically about the editing of the documents you
> propose to publish as -1 -2 … -n.
> 
As far as editing goes, the editors for level-1 are Travis and myself. No work 
is required from Boris and Cameron.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

~~Yves

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

[Ms2ger]

Hi Yves,

On 09/01/2015 11:30 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 20:12, Ms2ger  wrote:
>> On 08/31/2015 03:28 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>>> In fact, I would prefer to have the editors’ copy published as 
>>> TR/WebIDL/, and let -1 -2 … -n be pointers to the stable version
>>> (aka, what is implemented, not what has to be implemented).
>>> 
>> 
>> Who do you propose will construct such a "what is implemented" 
>> specification, and what useful work would you have them drop for
>> it?
>> 
>
> Well, we need tests, of course. There is a test suite that needs to
> be checked again, and lots of other specs have tests that actually
> test parts of WebIDL. So apart from new functionalities that don’t
> have test yet (and may by mean of other specs testing those), most of
> the work is to gather existing tests, and I am ready to help on that.
> So I don’t ask anyone to stop doing their usual job, especially as it
> can also help here. Of course people reviewing tests is always a nice
> feature, as you know.
>

I'm not sure I understand your point. Tests will need to be written and
reviewed, whether "what is implemented" specifications are published or
not. My question is specifically about the editing of the documents you
propose to publish as -1 -2 … -n.

Thanks
Ms2ger

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

[Yves Lafon]

> On 31 Aug 2015, at 20:12, Ms2ger  wrote:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi Yves,
> 
> On 08/31/2015 03:28 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>> In fact, I would prefer to have the editors’ copy published as 
>> TR/WebIDL/, and let -1 -2 … -n be pointers to the stable version 
>> (aka, what is implemented, not what has to be implemented).
>> 
> 
> Who do you propose will construct such a "what is implemented"
> specification, and what useful work would you have them drop for it?

Well, we need tests, of course. There is a test suite that needs to be checked 
again,
and lots of other specs have tests that actually test parts of WebIDL. 
So apart from new functionalities that don’t have test yet (and may by mean of 
other specs testing those), most of the work is to gather existing tests, and I 
am ready to help on that. So I don’t ask anyone to stop doing their usual job, 
especially as it can also help here.
Of course people reviewing tests is always a nice feature, as you know.

> 
> Thanks
> Ms2ger
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV5JkbAAoJEOXgvIL+s8n27aQH/jCaZRS6ONmC1aklZACK5Iep
> NV5VSxq1H2aHv6rdRiBNygeGzEiwENZUnIzv0r0ebQMCRCvhwXqbm+srV9FlFNdb
> dJ7c41cXNHIk4D1+18vYvK4AenqkHE5zozm4LqoZ8SL+YLRFYyIhpXOsV34R5DnP
> wjyLcEbcFgWmYK2TXTNphhTXEmebM89o4vmGkrKPdYqAwWaWNJz5L6hMZARH7lWq
> eYL0iwo9BQbIfR0gLIpuARvS2oOS0Y7/8gNkMuEQ4h9UHa+hcvsOL0JWI6Zz2vTM
> ZNO3nAE1h5In6DFXmK3ZkIlOpIGgsVsK7KmiIKlvZAOZ9NXui851uYA9j2YQQ3U=
> =ixCO
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

~~Yves