On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
* Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem
on the Web
Hi,
I would like to republish the Widget URI scheme spec as a Working Draft.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widget-uris/
Please consider this a 1 Week CFC - if you object, please let the group know.
What's new:
0 . Added a bunch of examples.
1. Resolving URIs is now left to the host Document
Hi Olli!
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
*
I agree with this, but it might be too late to make this change.
The problem is that if we returned an Array object, it would not have
a .item function, which the currently returned NodeList has.
I guess we could return a Array object and add a .item function to it.
/ Jonas
On Sun, Aug 21,
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Julien Richard-Foy
jul...@richard-foy.fr wrote:
Since Javascript 1.6, a lot of useful collection functions are defined for
Array [1]. Unfortunately, they can’t be used directly with results returned by
.querySelectorAll, or even .getElementsByTagName since these
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:44, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
What do you think?
+1
It would surely allow certain use cases to be covered that are not
covered today with form control elements.
How about not throwing on new ShadowTree(element) and just append a
new shadow root
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13891
Summary: Allow author scripts that fire before or after every
command
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:44, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
What do you think?
+1
It would surely allow certain use cases to be covered that are not
covered today with form control elements.
How
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13893
Summary: Only HTML elements should be editable
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
On 8/24/2011 1:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:44:15 +0200, Charles Pritchard
ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Is there any interest in supporting application/x-www-form-urlencoded ?
It would of course lose any carried content types or file names from
Blobs. urlencoding is
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I
have a couple questions. Please forgive me if my questions have
already been
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:44, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
What do you think?
+1
It would surely allow certain use cases
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
All,
Adam raises an interesting question: should we allow more than one
shadow DOM subtree per element?
Background: per current design
(http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model#Encapsulation), you can
only
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
Yes, shadow DOM gives the author an extra lever to control visibility
and hackability of their code. It's up to them to use this lever
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
This section http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model#Performance
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:50 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
Yes, shadow DOM gives the author an extra lever to
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
All,
Adam raises an interesting question: should we allow more than one
shadow DOM subtree per element?
Background: per current design
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:44, Dimitri Glazkov
Also -- we can always try to start with just one subtree, and then
enable multiple. Since the plumbing and the order specification are
trivial, it's something we can easily add.
:DG
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote:
Independent of our different point of view on control, shadow DOM needs
debug APIs. So much the better if these are available to extensions.
Let me see if I can capture this into a feature: user scripts may have
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:23 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
Independent of our different point of view on control, shadow DOM needs
debug APIs. So much the better if these are available to
I'm still trying to digest this, but it seem pretty clear the 'confinement'
is the clear scope thing I was asking about on es-discuss. According to
that discussion, this means needs to fit with the 'modules' thing on
ecmascript. That seems to be where you are headed, but basing a new proposal
on
23 matches
Mail list logo
