On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Daniel Freedman wrote:
>>> Since you have preciously claimed that instantiating a template element may
>>> not be a common pattern for custom elements / web components, I have a hard
>>> time accepting the claim tha
On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/14/14 10:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> We most vigorously object to making the CSS style resolver depend on JS
>> DOM object properties.
>
> Ryosuke, I think you misunderstood the proposal. I'm pretty sure we all
> object to having the CS
On 2/14/14 10:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
We most vigorously object to making the CSS style resolver depend on JS
DOM object properties.
Ryosuke, I think you misunderstood the proposal. I'm pretty sure we all
object to having the CSS style resolver depend on anything that involves
JS properti
On Feb 14, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Daniel Freedman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 201
On 14 Feb 2014 17:39, "Ryosuke Niwa" wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> On 2
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Freedman wrote:
> The other hand of this argument is that components that wish to lock
> themselves down could write:
>
> this.shadowRoot = undefined;
>
> Of course, this does would not change the outcome of the Shadow Selector
> spec, which is why a flag fo
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/1
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> [...]
> We all agree it's not a security boundary and you can go through great
>> lengths to get into the ShadowRoot if you really wanted, all we've done by
>> not exposing it is mak
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 2/14/14 5:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Also, I think that the Type 2 enc
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres
> wrote:
> > The editors of the [manifest] spec have now closed all substantive
> issues for "v1".
> >
> > The spec defines the following:
> >
> > * A link relationship for manifests (so the
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/14 5:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I think that the Type 2 encapsulation has the same
>>> characteristics.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Dimitri Glazkov
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dimitri, I'd still love to hear feedbac
On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/14/14 5:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Also, I think that the Type 2 encapsulation has the same
> characteristics. If the component author does things perfectly and
> doesn't depend on
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/14/14 5:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> Also, I think that the Type 2 encapsulation has the same
>> characteristics. If the component author does things perfectly and
>> doesn't depend on any outside code
>>
>
> And never invokes any D
On 2/14/14 5:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Also, I think that the Type 2 encapsulation has the same
characteristics. If the component author does things perfectly and
doesn't depend on any outside code
And never invokes any DOM methods on the nodes in the component's
anonymous content. Which is
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>>
>> A closure is an iron-clad isolation mechanism for object ownership
On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>> A closure is an iron-clad isolation mechanism for object ownership with
>> regards to the closing-over function object. There's ab
On 2/14/14 2:03 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
Then we need to guard all DOM traversal and DOM mutation methods and
throw if the counter is non zero.
This is a fairly nontrivial whack-a-mole exercise, sadly (starting with
defining "traversal").
-Boris
Another alternative is to disallow DOM traversal and DOM mutation inside
these constructors. By disallow I mean throw an error! Here is a rough
outline of what the algorithm might look like.
Let there be a global counter CostomElementConstructionCounter which is
initially set to 0.
1. Parse and b
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Dimitri, I'd still love to hear feedback from you on the idea above.
> >> Seems like it could fix one of the des
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Dimitri, I'd still love to hear feedback from you on the idea above.
>> Seems like it could fix one of the design issues that a lot of people
>> have reacted to.
>
>
> I am not su
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Dimitri, I'd still love to hear feedback from you on the idea above.
> Seems like it could fix one of the design issues that a lot of people
> have reacted to.
>
I am not sure I fully understand how this will work. Let me try to repeat
it b
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
> A closure is an iron-clad isolation mechanism for object ownership with
> regards to the closing-over function object. There's absolutely no
> iteration of the closed-over state of
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24349
Anne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
24 matches
Mail list logo
