Let's take a look at the original list of use cases proposed in 2008 at
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases:
Layout Manager
Layout Manager Use Case Parameters
Who
Web Framework Engineer
What
Build a layout library, consisting of a UI layout primitives, such as panel,
On Dec 8, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Daniel Freedman dfre...@google.com wrote:
Developers want data-binding, and the auto cloning template does not give
them a favorable timing model.
They want to set those up before the ShadowDOM is stamped, on a per-instance
level.
If they were to use the
On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
The issue is that being an element and having shadow DOM -- or any display
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
The
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
[...] I added this serialization step as optional, conditional on the browser
storing an internalSubset.
It is somewhat upsetting that in 2013 we still need to discuss why
optional features and specifications
Dear Advisory Committee representative,
This is a W3C Patent Policy Call for Exclusions for the following
Recommendation Track document:
- DOM Parsing and Serialization
(http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Parsing/),
exclusion opportunity ending on 8 February 2014 23:59 UTC
This specification
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Coralie Mercier cora...@w3.org wrote:
- DOM Parsing and Serialization
(http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Parsing/),
There were several outstanding comments against publishing and the WG
published anyway? What is going on?
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
You assert that inheriting from built-in elements does not make any sense.
You seem to base this on the claim that hooks (the example being form
submission protocol hooks) are not well defined. Whether hooks are well
On 12/10/13 10:21 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Coralie Mercier cora...@w3.org wrote:
- DOM Parsing and Serialization
(http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Parsing/),
There were several outstanding comments against publishing and the WG
published anyway? What is
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
I think Ryosuke has a point here though. ES6 brings subclassing to the
platform, but are not even close to reimagining the platform in terms
of that.
ES6 does not bring sub classing to the table. It has been there
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
During the CfC, I only recall one technical comment and Travis created bug
[23936] for that comment and he noted that comment will be considered as a
`LC comment`.
It seems the technical comment about it blatantly
On 12/10/13 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
E.g. the dialog's close() method won't work as defined
right now on a subclass of HTMLDialogElement.
Why not?
I assumed that actual ES6 subclassing, complete with invoking the right
superclass @@create, would in fact produce an object for which
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
I think Ryosuke has a point here though. ES6 brings subclassing to the
platform, but are not even close to reimagining the platform in terms
of that.
ES6 does not bring sub classing to the table. It has been there all
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/10/13 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
E.g. the dialog's close() method won't work as defined
right now on a subclass of HTMLDialogElement.
Why not?
I assumed that actual ES6 subclassing, complete with invoking
From: a...@google.com a...@google.com on behalf of Erik Arvidsson
a...@chromium.org
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I think Ryosuke has a point here though. ES6 brings subclassing to the
platform, but are not even close to reimagining the
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate to use the in-progress nature of making
the web platform more JavaScript-friendly as an argument for making it more
JavaScript hostile (by prohibiting element
This is a Request for Comments for the Last Call Working Draft of DOM
Parsing and Serialization:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-DOM-Parsing-20131210/
If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by
7 January 2014.
The bugs for this spec are [Bugs].
-Thanks, AB
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Anyhow, if the bug doesn't capture your concern(s), please update it.
Since when did we start putting the onus on the reviewer that
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate to use the in-progress nature of
making the web platform more JavaScript-friendly as an
During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared
Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the
first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself.
It is my intention to start this work soon. My question for the group-should I
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/10/13 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
E.g. the dialog's close() method won't work as defined
right now on a subclass of
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove
Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec
to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the
On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate to use the in-progress
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe
thursday) and will hit release on April 29th.
So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd
implementation, then we might already be
On 10/12/13 21:09, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It
will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe
thursday) and will hit release on April 29th.
So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd
As the specification was more written for browser targets I'm not sure if it
count for an implementation to you but note that Shared Worker, as well
as dedicated workers, are also implemented natively on the server in
Wakanda since few versions and often used in this context.
see:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
The reason you've been unable to get rid of the arrow is because it's a
separate box that is rendered inside the outermost box. That will remain
true even if
From: Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
Actually, I think our mental models are surprisingly aligned. Which is great!
More below.
Sweet!
So dropping the arrowthingy element seems fine.
I'm not opposed to it, just trying to come up with something minimal.
option:hover should just work, no?
I've updated your pen with the other minor syntax changes that have occured
in Chrome Canary:
@host - :host
template.content.cloneNode(true) - document.importNode(template.content)
::content p {} will always win over ::content {}, so I moved the black
color to the style for p { }
And here's yet another version that should be usable in Stable Chrome and
Canary: http://codepen.io/anon/pen/ybEch
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Freedman dfre...@google.com wrote:
I've updated your pen with the other minor syntax changes that have
occured in Chrome Canary:
@host -
Absolutely brilliant, Daniel! This is very explanatory :) I think I will
write a blog post about this.
Thank you very much for your answer!
On 11 December 2013 00:11, Daniel Freedman dfre...@google.com wrote:
And here's yet another version that should be usable in Stable Chrome and
Canary:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this. If you want the ::control to render the same
way no matter if the select is open or not, then why do you need to test
for that state?
Right, what I meant was: normally, when
On Dec 6, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Brian Di Palma off...@gmail.com wrote:
If UA controls are not styleable in the manner I wish them to be and I
have access to custom elements + shadow DOM,
I think I would just create my
On 12/10/13 6:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I would also think that you need properties to position the ::popout.
Oh, yes. The extra fun here is:
1) Should the popout be able to paint outside the browser window?
Right now, comboboxes (select size=1) can but normal CSS boxes cannot.
2) The
Would any potential implementer consider supporting a HTTP based solution to
loading manifests?
The rationale being:
For manifests it is much more commonly going to be the case that there's
existing content that people want to add a manifest to. Doing that by editing
each and every HTML file
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/10/13 6:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I would also think that you need properties to position the ::popout.
Oh, yes. The extra fun here is:
1) Should the popout be able to paint outside the browser window? Right
Hi Rob,
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
That's a great overview!
There's 2 points I think haven't fully been addressed.
1. Section 8. Navigation
Much of this work (and HTML5 in general) is about bringing the Web
Platform up to being equal with native
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 8:02, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Over the last few weeks, a few of us folks in the Web Mob IG have been
investigating the use cases and requirements for bookmarking web apps to
home screen. The output
38 matches
Mail list logo
