On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Please look over it. I look forward to your eagle-eyed insights in the
form of bugs and emails.
You try to monkey patch the obtain algorithm but in doing so you
invoke a different fetch algorithm. One which does not
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
But I'm not sure about why we'd choose ByteString in lieu of being strict
with what characters are allowed within DOMString. Anne, can you shed some
light on this? And of course we should eliminate CR + LF as a
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'm also not convinced that leaving what exactly to return in the
HTTP scenario open to implementors is a good thing. We've been through
such things before and learned that handwaving is bad. Lets just pick
Additionally, I think http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#dfn-type should
clarify that the browser must not use statistical methods to guess the
charset parameter part of the type as part of determining the type.
Firefox currently asks magic 8-ball, but the magic 8-ball is broken.
AFAICT, WebKit does
Hi All,
We just wanted to inform you that Yves Lafon (yla...@w3.org) is WebApps'
new Team Contact.
Doug - thanks for your previous work in WebApps and good luck in your
new endeavors, especially webplatform.org.
Yves - welcome to the group. For those that don't know Yves, he has been
on
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
The alternative argument is that XHR should represent the data source,
reading data from the network and pushing it to Stream.
I think this is the
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Currently, if I document.register something, it's my job to supply a
complete prototype.
For HTMLElementElement on the other hand, I supply a tag name to extend, and
the prototype containing the extensions, and the system
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Cons:
* The callbacks now hang out in the wind as prototype members. Foolish
people can invoke them, inspectors show them, etc.
This con could get uncomfortably exciting if we try building HTML
elements with custom
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Blake Kaplan mrb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
1) Somehow magically chain create callbacks. In Lucy's case,
foo-lucy will call both Raj's and Lucy's callbacks.
2) Get rid of a separate lifecycle
If you have a tag name it is easy to get the prototype.
var tmp = elementElement.ownerDocument.createElement(tagName);
var prototype = Object.getPrototypeOf(tmp);
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Scott Miles
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
The goal is to demonstrate that the materials referenced are stable and
any change to those references won't have an impact on the
recommendations.
What do you mean by stable? If we find something wrong with a REC, we
still need to change it,
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
But you want to continue linking to the version hosted on the Disqus
server instead of hosting it yourself and modifying as desired, presumably?
Because if you're hosting yourself you can certainly just make a slight
modification
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
I just mirrored LinkStyle
(http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#the-linkstyle-interface) here. Given
that document already has URL, you're right -- I don't need the
Component interface at all. LinkComponent could just have a
On Mar 2, 2013 6:32 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also wrap your own requestAnimationFrameInterval like so:
var requestAnimationFrameInterval = function(callback){
var runner = function(){
callback();
requestAnimationFrame(runner);
};
runner();
}
This
On Mar 6, 2013 2:07 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Here are all the callbacks that we could think of:
* readyCallback (artist formerly known as create) -- called when the
element is instantiated with generated constructor, createElement/NS
or shortly after it was instantiated
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 18:23 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
The goal is to demonstrate that the materials referenced are stable and
any change to those references won't have an impact on the
recommendations.
What do you mean by stable?
If a
Mostly it's cognitive dissonance. It will be easy to trip over the fact
that both things involve a user-supplied prototype, but they are required
to be critically different objects.
Also it's hard for me to justify why this difference should exist. If the
idea is that element provides extra
Part 1 - Finding issues, preventing recurence
This thread started as counter-rabble rousing. This search for problems,
wanting desperately
to find some, to hunt for paths for avoiding a recurence- has yielded IMO
triflingly small
big results.
Alex's discussion about understanding the state
I also want to keep ES6 classes in mind. Presumably in declarative form I
declare my class as if it extends nothing. Will 'super' still work in that
case?
Scott
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Mostly it's cognitive dissonance. It will be easy to trip
As I started work on the components spec, I realized something terrible:
a) even if all HTML parsers could run script at any point when
constructing tree, and
b) even if all JS engines supported overriding [[Construct]] internal
method on Function,
c) we still can't make custom element
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk n...@terrainformatica.com
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
n...@terrainformatica.com wrote:
At least it is easier than
IMO, there is no benefit to 'real' constructors other than technical
purity, which is no joke, but I hate to use that as a club to beat users
with.
This is strictly anecdotal, but I've played tricks with 'constructor'
before (in old Dojo) and there was much hand-wringing about it, but to my
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Components don't directly correlate with custom elements. They are
just documents that you can load together with your document. With
things like multi-threaded parser, these are useful on their own, even
without custom
Btw. just as a sidenote, the document in document.requestAnimationFrame
kind of matters. If you're calling it from the document that the canvas
isn't in, then you'll get flickering. That may sound funny, but it's
actually not that far fetched and is a situation you can run into if you're
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
n...@terrainformatica.com wrote:
Physical commit (write) of objects to storage happens on either
a) GC cycle or b) on explicit storage.commit() call or on c) VM shutdown.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
On 7.3.2013 19:54, Scott González wrote:
Who is killing anything?
Hi, given
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webapps/**
Fwiw, I'm still following this thread, but so far Scott G. has been saying
everything I would say (good on ya, brother :P).
My understanding is that you have to explicitly ask to walk into the
shadow, so this wouldn't happen accidentally. Can someone please confirm or
deny this?
Confirmed. The
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
I also find the name confusing. It's common to use the term 'component' when
describing the functionality of a custom element.
What about HTML Modules?
Then we probably need to rename link rel=module for consistency?
:DG
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
I also want to keep ES6 classes in mind. Presumably in declarative form I
declare my class as if it extends nothing. Will 'super' still work in that
case?
If you extend nothing (null) as in:
class Foo extends null {
m()
It seems to me like you might be trying to solve a set of
contradictory requirements:
1. We want to enable implementing existing complex elements using
WebComponents
2. Running scripts in the middle of parsing is unsafe.
3. Exiting parsing for any complex element is slow.
4. We don't want to be
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is better?
The name is difficult. My main point is that using components causes
unnecessary confusion.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013
Also, it sounds like this specification should be titled Fetching
components or some such as that's about all it defines.
I also find the name confusing. It's common to use the term 'component'
when describing the functionality of a custom element.
What about HTML Modules?
On Fri, Mar 8,
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is better?
The name is difficult. My main point is that using components causes
unnecessary confusion.
I understand. Welcome
rel=include ?
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is better?
The name is
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk
n...@terrainformatica.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
yes, it actually is document related to current document... does not
seem confusing to me at all,
but I can go with fragment or stub as well :]
B.
On 8.3.2013 22:25, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and Anne decided that these targets are
'document', did they not?
rel=document seems to communicate that the relation of the linked
resources to the document is document, which is at least cyclical
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Related to the ongoing discussion about whether to expose the shadow
tree of web components by default or not, but somewhat orthogonal to
it, I think there is a question of *how* to expose the web component
shadow tree.
If
Related to the ongoing discussion about whether to expose the shadow
tree of web components by default or not, but somewhat orthogonal to
it, I think there is a question of *how* to expose the web component
shadow tree.
If I understand things correct, the .shadowRoot property and the
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
But I'm not sure about why we'd choose ByteString in lieu of being strict
with what characters are allowed within DOMString. Anne, can
WebApps WG,
I have been following with interest (though with less time to give it the
attention I wish) the emergence of Web Components and related specifications.
(HTML Templates, Shadow DOM, etc.)
I wonder if it would be a good time to start discussing the security model
jointly with
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and Anne decided that these targets are
'document', did they not?
Scott
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
hi
let's apply KISS here
how about just
rel=document
or
rel=htmldocument
Brona
On 8.3.2013 22:05,
hi
let's apply KISS here
how about just
rel=document
or
rel=htmldocument
Brona
On 8.3.2013 22:05, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
n...@terrainformatica.com wrote:
Physical commit (write) of objects to storage happens on either
a) GC cycle or b) on explicit storage.commit() call or on c) VM shutdown.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
n...@terrainformatica.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk
n...@terrainformatica.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
The alternative argument is that XHR should represent the data source,
reading data
46 matches
Mail list logo
