Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov > > wrote: > > > The thing that really bothers me is that this approach is contradicting > > > itself. We go to into pretty elabo

[Bug 24658] [imports]: The fetch readiness shouldn't block fetching.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24658 Morrita Hajime changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> > >> What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and > >> whose parent doesn't ha

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> > >> What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and > >> whose parent doesn't ha

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and >> whose parent doesn't have a constructor, no need to add them to the >> above arrays. Just insert th

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Feb 18, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and > whose parent doesn't have a constructor, no need to add them to the > above arrays. Just insert them into their pa

Re: [webcomponents] Switch for Selection Isolation

Hi, I've been thinking more about selection, and I think we need a flag/switch > to indicate whether we want a isolated selection or not > since it's highly desirable to have a separate selection for creating > custom form controls like input, text area, Would you mind elaborating what you mean

Re: WebKit interest in ServiceWorkers (was Re: [manifest] Utility of bookmarking to home screen, was V1 ready for wider review)

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow > > art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote: >> >> The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group record >> consensus to publish it. H

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > >> Here's an alternative proposal: >> >> 1) The Web developers are already aware of the fact that you can create >> new instances of JS objects without running their constructors

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > Here's an alternative proposal: > > 1) The Web developers are already aware of the fact that you can create > new instances of JS objects without running their constructors with > Object.create > These are not the instances you are looking

Re: Why can't we just use constructor instead of createdCallback?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and > whose parent doesn't have a constructor, no need to add them to the > above arrays. Just insert them into their parent. That means that when > that the constructor of an

Re: "Officially" deprecating main-thread synchronous XHR?

I believe Beacon will address the use cases for developers currently using sync XHR in beforeunload/unload/pagehide. I don't think any browser should warn about sync XHR in these cases until they support Beacon. I've discussed this will Olli in IRC, but I've been pushing for jQuery to deprecate jQ

Re: Clipboard API: Enable `copy` event simulation with user's express permission (domain-wide)?

So, the story so far is that the spec has added something it labels "semi-trusted events" - that is an event triggered from a trusted event of a whitelisted type. The precedence here is popup blocking - browsers already have rules for which events are "more trusted than others" in terms of likel

Re: WebKit interest in ServiceWorkers (was Re: [manifest] Utility of bookmarking to home screen, was V1 ready for wider review)

On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow > wrote: The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group record consensus to publish it. However, it's usually helpful if the FPWD is feature complete f

Re: [webcomponents] Imperative API for Insertion Points

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote: > I think Ryosuke's .add/remove are a better base layer than > . In fact, is straightforwardly > implementable / explainable on top of MO + .add/remove, but > there are several use cases that .add/remove address that are > difficult or impo

[Bug 24708] New: [Shadow]: Wrong spelling

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24708 Bug ID: 24708 Summary: [Shadow]: Wrong spelling Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Prio