On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather like it if the spec said the component document is a document
that's always in standards mode and has no children and then the contents
of the component were put into a DocumentFragment.
Should it bother us
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather like it if the spec said the component document is a document
that's always in standards mode and has no children and then the
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Here's one scenario where keeping components Documents might be a
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Here's one scenario where keeping components Documents might be a good
idea. Suppose you just built a multi-threaded parser into your renderer
Here's one scenario where keeping components Documents might be a good
idea. Suppose you just built a multi-threaded parser into your renderer
engine, and you would like to hook it up to start loading multiple
components in parallel. How difficult will it be for you to do this if they
were all
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Here's one scenario where keeping components Documents might be a good
idea. Suppose you just built a multi-threaded parser into your renderer
engine, and you would like to hook it up to start loading multiple
Also, how would you resolve URLs. Can I use base?
On Mar 12, 2013 10:22 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Hi folks!
Just had a quick discussion with Elliott and he suggested that instead of
building
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.comwrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Hi folks!
Just had a quick discussion with Elliott and he suggested that instead of
building full-blown Documents, the link rel=components
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@google.com wrote:
Also, how would you resolve URLs. Can I use base?
Interesting question. If indeed using base is a requirement, we can't use
DocumentFragments.
Another point here: since each component has its own location, then
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.comwrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Hi folks!
Just had a quick discussion with Elliott and he
Developers will absolutely concat components together, often the entire
apps worth. They will also use them separately. This flexibility is one of
the great strengths of this simple concept.
As Dimitri mentioned, Web Components solves a great many of the loader
issues (both at development and
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Hi folks!
Just had a quick discussion with Elliott and he suggested that instead of
building full-blown Documents, the link rel=components just make
DocumentFragments, just like template does.
I am confused by what
Hi folks!
Just had a quick discussion with Elliott and he suggested that instead of
building full-blown Documents, the link rel=components just make
DocumentFragments, just like template does.
Looking at
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/dom.html#the-document-object
and
13 matches
Mail list logo
