Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-12-04 Thread Philip Jägenstedt
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: > >> This is basically an after the fact notification that > >> we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. > >> While doing this,

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-28 Thread Andrew Overholt
Custom Elements is being tracked separately. Watch for an intent email regarding them soon. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:05 AM wrote: > Is this just shadow dom or there will be also support for custom elements? > > Thanks > ___ > dev-platform mailing list

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-28 Thread d . grammatiko
Is this just shadow dom or there will be also support for custom elements? Thanks ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-28 Thread Philip Jägenstedt
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 10:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez > > wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > > > On 27/11/17 12:20, sm

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-28 Thread Emilio Cobos Álvarez
On 11/28/2017 10:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez > wrote: > > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: > >> This is basically an after the fact notification that >

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-28 Thread Philip Jägenstedt
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: > >> This is basically an after the fact notification that > >> we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. > >> While doing this,

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-27 Thread Emilio Cobos Álvarez
On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: >> This is basically an after the fact notification that >> we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. >> While doing this, the v0 implementation, which was never exposed to >> the web, will be r

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-27 Thread James Graham
On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: This is basically an after the fact notification that we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. While doing this, the v0 implementation, which was never exposed to the web, will be removed. v1 is luckily way simpler, so this all should

Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-27 Thread smaug
This is basically an after the fact notification that we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. While doing this, the v0 implementation, which was never exposed to the web, will be removed. v1 is luckily way simpler, so this all should simplify various bits in DOM. FF6

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

2017-11-27 Thread smaug
On 11/27/2017 02:20 PM, smaug wrote: This is basically an after the fact notification that we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. While doing this, the v0 implementation, which was never exposed to the web, will be removed. v1 is luckily way simpler, so this all sho