Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

[Philippe Le Hegaret]

On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 09:44 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 11/19/14 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow  
> > wrote:
> >> Although there appears to be agreement that work on the [uievents] spec
> >> should stop, the various replies raise sufficient questions that I consider
> >> this CfC (as written) as failed.
> >>
> >> Travis, Gary - would you please make a specific proposal for these two
> >> specs? In particular, what is the title and shortname for each document, 
> >> and
> >> which spec/shortname becomes the WG Note?
> >>
> >> After we have agreed on a way forward, I'll start a new CfC.
> >>
> >> (I believe the Principle of Least Surprise here means considering specs 
> >> that
> >> currently reference [uievents] or [DOM-Level-3-Events]. F.ex., I suppose a
> >> document titled "UI Events" with a shortname of DOM-Level-3-Events could be
> >> a bit confusing to some, although strictly speaking could be done.)
> > My proposal would be to update UI Events with the latest editor's
> > draft of DOM Level 3 Events (title renamed, of course) and have the
> > DOM Level 3 Events URL redirect to UI Events. That would communicate
> > clearly what happened.
> 
> Yves, Philippe - can Anne's proposal be done?

I'm not aware of any reason that would prevent us from doing so.

Philippe

CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 28

[Arthur Barstow]

The latest interop data Zhiqiang generated for Server-sent Events [All] 
indicates 102/124 passes and [<2] isolates the 22 failures with less 
than two implementations including 9 failures which are due to Web IDL 
implementation bugs (thus, not counting the WebIDL failures the pass 
rate is 111/124 or ~90%).


The non Web IDL failures are:

1. 
http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/dedicated-worker/eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm 

2. 
http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/shared-worker/eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm

3. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/format-field-retry-bogus.htm

My take on these failures is:

#1 and #2 test the UA's error handling of URLs that cannot be resolved 
(f.ex. unsupported URL scheme, URL doesn't exist). The failures appear 
to be relatively low priority implementation bugs (see [Bug119974]) that 
seem unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.


#3 tests the UA's handling of invalid data value for the retry 
(constructor) parameter. This test actually now passes when I run it on 
FF beta 34.0 so it should be removed from [<2]. Regardless, the failure 
appears to be a relatively low priority implementation bug that seems 
unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.


As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish SSE as a Proposed 
Recommendation. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, 
please reply to this e-mail by November 28 at the latest. Positive 
response is preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as 
agreement with the proposal.


The [ED] has changed since the [CR] was published (see [Diff]) so this 
proposal assumes that if/when there is a resource commitment to include 
changes on the TR track, that will be done separately.


-Thanks, AB

[All] 
[<2] 
[Bug119974] 

[CR] 
[ED] 
[Diff] 
 

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Server-Sent Events; deadline November 28

[Glenn Adams]

+1

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Arthur Barstow 
wrote:

> The latest interop data Zhiqiang generated for Server-sent Events [All]
> indicates 102/124 passes and [<2] isolates the 22 failures with less than
> two implementations including 9 failures which are due to Web IDL
> implementation bugs (thus, not counting the WebIDL failures the pass rate
> is 111/124 or ~90%).
>
> The non Web IDL failures are:
>
> 1. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/dedicated-worker/
> eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm
> 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/shared-worker/
> eventsource-constructor-non-same-origin.htm
> 3. http://www.w3c-test.org/eventsource/format-field-retry-bogus.htm
>
> My take on these failures is:
>
> #1 and #2 test the UA's error handling of URLs that cannot be resolved
> (f.ex. unsupported URL scheme, URL doesn't exist). The failures appear to
> be relatively low priority implementation bugs (see [Bug119974]) that seem
> unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.
>
> #3 tests the UA's handling of invalid data value for the retry
> (constructor) parameter. This test actually now passes when I run it on FF
> beta 34.0 so it should be removed from [<2]. Regardless, the failure
> appears to be a relatively low priority implementation bug that seems
> unlikely to occur in a tested deployment.
>
> As such, this is Call for Consensus to publish SSE as a Proposed
> Recommendation. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please
> reply to this e-mail by November 28 at the latest. Positive response is
> preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with
> the proposal.
>
> The [ED] has changed since the [CR] was published (see [Diff]) so this
> proposal assumes that if/when there is a resource commitment to include
> changes on the TR track, that will be done separately.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> [All] 
> [<2] 
> [Bug119974] 
>
> [CR] 
> [ED] 
> [Diff]  2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2Fhtml5%2Feventsource%2FOverview.html%
> 3Frev%3D1.233%3Bcontent-type%3Dtext%252Fhtml&doc2=http%3A%
> 2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2Fhtml5%
> 2Feventsource%2FOverview.html%3Frev%3D1.258%3Bcontent-type%3Dtext%252Fhtml>
>
>
>
>
>

Themeing mechanism for custom elements

[Dan Elebash]

It would be nice to have a themeing mechanism baked into the browsers for
custom elements, pages, and the whole app.  Most UI Widget frameworks today
have themeing built in, such as Jquery UI, KendoUI, Wijmo, ect ect. Oses and
some other non-web applications have themeing, heck even our browsers can
have custom themes.  I know the Polymer team is working on making a solution
for Polymer by creating custom, re-usable, sharable themes, but this is on a
framework by framework basis.  

 

I would like to see a spec for themes either for css as a whole or
web-components.  Another source of inspiration is Asp.net themeing, you can
theme a whole app, individual pages, partial pages, or individual
components.  A standard mechanism would be very useful now that we have
custom elements as a standard, almost :), but themes should not just be
limited to custom elements they should appy to our existing built in ones as
well, buttons, selects, ect.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[Bug 27401] New: [Shadow]: Fully explore composition

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27401

Bug ID: 27401
   Summary: [Shadow]: Fully explore composition
   Product: WebAppsWG
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: Component Model
  Assignee: dglaz...@chromium.org
  Reporter: dglaz...@chromium.org
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzi...@w3.org
CC: m...@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
Blocks: 14978

This is a meta bug for polishing Shadow DOM as a composition primitive.
https://gist.github.com/dglazkov/716913d889c38e42d55c

With Shadow DOM, the developers finally have the composition boundaries to help
them reason about larger web apps in terms of smaller chunks. The actual
concept is not unique. What's unique about it is that the Web Platform is also
aware of these boundaries.

We have a whole set of challenges ahead of us. We need to make sure that the
composition boundaries have the right crunchy/gooey balance to be truly useful,
we need to build introspection tooling to make these composition boundaries
more grokkable. We also need to ensure that these boundaries are designed in a
way that allows the browser to help developer build modern UX
(http://bit.ly/blink-midnight-train as an example of UX guidelines).

Some of these challenges are conflicting with each other, and the problem
easily gets into the over-constrained territory.

We also need better terminology. "Information hiding" sounds negative and
purposeless. Why would anyone want to hide information?

"Encapsulation" is a super-overloaded term. When you say it to one crowd, they
hear iframe. To another crowd, it sounds like something different.

I suggest we use the term "composition" and see how far we can get. 

For example, the question "when should I put things in Shadow DOM?" is a
symptom of approaching the problem from the wrong angle. It's effectively the
same question as "when should I put things in a class?"

I, as a developer, should use Shadow DOM when I need to draw composition
boundaries in my code. The consistency of these composition boundaries should
be flexible enough to express the degrees of composition I need in each
particular case.

For example, when I build a  element, it seems nonsensical for
document.activeElement to return  when I focused something inside of
it. However, it's equally non-sensical for  element to _not_ do
that.

Unfortunately, too often, "flexibility" is another word for "added complexity"
and "unpredictable performance characteristics". This is the hardest
constraint. We should avoid adding more bloat to the platform.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 27405] New: [Custom]: Convert all ES5 references to ES6

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27405

Bug ID: 27405
   Summary: [Custom]: Convert all ES5 references to ES6
   Product: WebAppsWG
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: Component Model
  Assignee: dglaz...@chromium.org
  Reporter: dglaz...@chromium.org
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzi...@w3.org
CC: m...@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
Blocks: 14968

See bug 26365.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 25714] [Custom]: Move microtask processing to compound microtask

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25714

Dimitri Glazkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Dimitri Glazkov  ---
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/ffeeba6b1a3446ebc183a0ae2b7ee8445e44635d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.