Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

2015-03-13 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
... found it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7ci1-lBTY6AJxgN99aCMwjZKCjKv1v3y_7WLtcgM00/edit?pli=1 :DG On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: Yep. Elliott (cc'd) had a proposal like this a while back. It was coolly received (can't remember the

Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

2015-03-13 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Ah, thanks Dimitri. After reading that, I'm also receiving it rather coolly. It's a very interesting idea, but as it relates to web components, its errs strongly on the side of isolation to the degree

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Unless the SVG WG is willing to drop support for script![CDATA[...]]/script. But that seems like it'd break a lot of content. Like, on the same line? Because I recall that sort of thing showing up in old HTML tutorials,

Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

2015-03-13 Thread Travis Leithead
Ah, thanks Dimitri. After reading that, I'm also receiving it rather coolly. It's a very interesting idea, but as it relates to web components, its errs strongly on the side of isolation to the degree that the component would be more isolated than an iframe today; at least in same-domain,

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh bl...@netflix.com wrote: What are your thoughts on this idea? I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we special-cased SVG elements, similar to how e.g.

[Bug 28211] New: [Shadow]: A syntax for loading/parsing shadow trees directly from HTML

2015-03-13 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28211 Bug ID: 28211 Summary: [Shadow]: A syntax for loading/parsing shadow trees directly from HTML Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS:

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Lesh bl...@netflix.com wrote: I agree completely, Tab, but it's actually too late to stop forcing authors to think about namespaces, the fact I currently have to think about it is the source of this suggestion. You have to think about it today *because

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh bl...@netflix.com wrote: What are your thoughts on this idea? I think it would be more natural

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Benjamin Lesh
I agree completely, Tab, but it's actually too late to stop forcing authors to think about namespaces, the fact I currently have to think about it is the source of this suggestion. The merging of namespaces is the ideal solution, no doubt, but it's probably not a realistic solution in the short

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh bl...@netflix.com wrote:

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Karl Dubost
Tab, The only conflicts in the namespaces are font (deprecated in SVG2), script and style (harmonizing with HTML so there's no difference), and a (attempting to harmonize API surface). *If* I didn't make any mistakes (I quickly did and didn't check everything.) The intersection seems to be: