Re: [XHR2] Avoiding charset dependencies on user settings

2011-09-28 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:16:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: So it sounds like your argument is that we should do meta prescan because we can do it without breaking any new ground. Not because it's better or was inherently safer before webkit tried it out. It does seem better to

HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Roland Steiner
Expanding on the general web component discussion, one area that hasn't been touched on AFAIK is how components fit within the content model of HTML elements. Take for example a list ( http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html#the-ul-element ): ol and ul

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dominic Cooney
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Roland Steiner rolandstei...@chromium.org wrote: Expanding on the general web component discussion, one area that hasn't been touched on AFAIK is how components fit within the content model of HTML elements. Take for example a list

[Bug 14323] New: This API could easily be used by XForms implementations if protocols such as localstorage:// could also be specified. Thanks! Alain Couthures agenceXML Invited Expert in Forms Wor

2011-09-28 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14323 Summary: This API could easily be used by XForms implementations if protocols such as localstorage:// could also be specified. Thanks! Alain Couthures agenceXML Invited

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Hajime Morrita
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Roland Steiner rolandstei...@chromium.orgwrote: Expanding on the general web component discussion, one area that hasn't been touched on AFAIK is how components fit within the content model of HTML elements. Take for example a list (

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Roland Steiner wrote: Expanding on the general web component discussion, one area that hasn't been touched on AFAIK is how components fit within the content model of HTML elements. Take for example a list (

Re: [XHR2] Avoiding charset dependencies on user settings

2011-09-28 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: So it sounds like your argument is that we should do meta prescan because we can do it without breaking any new ground. Not because it's better or was inherently safer before webkit tried it out. The outcome I am suggesting

[webstorage] Back to LC? [Was] RfC: LCWD of Web Storage; deadline September 27

2011-09-28 Thread Arthur Barstow
The comment period for WebStorage's September 1 LCWD ended yesterday. I didn't notice any e-mail threads specific to this LC but there are 3 opens bugs at the moment [1]. Additionally, on September 10 the ED was updated to replace initStorageEvent with the dictionary-based approach [2].

[workers] Back to LC? [Was: RfC: LCWD of Web Workers; deadline September 27]

2011-09-28 Thread Arthur Barstow
The comment period for Web Worker's September 1 LCWD ended yesterday. This spec now has 5 open bugs [1]. Additionally, on September 10 the ED was updated to use constructors instead of init*Events methods [2]. Is the expectation: back to LC when the bugs are closed? -AB [1]

[Bug 14296] sorry, does this work

2011-09-28 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14296 Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Re: Mutation Observers: a replacement for DOM Mutation Events

2011-09-28 Thread Adam Klein
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote: On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote: For each observer, if a registration exists which requests the matching mutation type and whose observed node set contains the target node of the mutation, a MutationRecord is

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Charles Pritchard
On 9/27/2011 11:39 PM, Roland Steiner wrote: Expanding on the general web component discussion, one area that hasn't been touched on AFAIK is how components fit within the content model of HTML elements. Take for example a list

Re: Mutation Observers: a replacement for DOM Mutation Events

2011-09-28 Thread Olli Pettay
On 09/28/2011 07:01 PM, Adam Klein wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote: On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote: For each observer, if a registration exists which requests the matching mutation type and whose observed node set contains the target

Re: Web Components use cases, was Re: Notes from a component model pow-wow

2011-09-28 Thread Charles Pritchard
On 9/27/2011 10:26 PM, Roland Steiner wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote: [...] We have an opportunity now to document the sub-elements of single form controls. That is certainly a very valid goal. For

Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
The way to solve this is not to change the content models, it's to use an actual li and bind it to the component. We should not have authors inventing new elements. It doesn't have fallback behaviour, it doesn't have semantics that can be interpreted by search engines and accessibility tools,

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@chromium.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Roland Steiner rolandstei...@chromium.org wrote: Expanding on the general web component discussion, one area that hasn't been touched on AFAIK is how components fit within the

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 2:08 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: So, we need a way to express in markup that a particular element is to be created with a particular behavior. Yes. Since the tagName is the only identifying property of a DOM element that can't be changed, this brings us to... custom tag names. Or

[Bug 14329] New: I believe the possible DoS attack message flooding should be addressed i.e. a rogue domain uses postMessage to crash an implementation, crash another window etc. Jean-Lou Dupont

2011-09-28 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14329 Summary: I believe the possible DoS attack message flooding should be addressed i.e. a rogue domain uses postMessage to crash an implementation, crash another window etc.

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 2:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: C.) Just don't allow components to be used in places that have a special content model. I prefer this one, because: 1. It is very simple. 2. It discourages people from using components in cases already handled by HTML. +1 as a first step. We can

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 9/28/11 2:08 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: So, we need a way to express in markup that a particular element is to be created with a particular behavior. Yes. Since the tagName is the only identifying property of a DOM

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 2:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Can you help me understand what the issues with fallback are? Sure. If I want to attach a component to a table and to do that I have to write: x-my-table trtdContent/td/tr x-my-table and somewhere before that point register that

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 9/28/11 2:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: C.) Just don't allow components to be used in places that have a special content model. I prefer this one, because: 1. It is very simple. 2. It discourages people from using

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 9/28/11 2:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Can you help me understand what the issues with fallback are? Sure.  If I want to attach a component to a table and to do that I have to write:  x-my-table    

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 2:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: So, this is really a parsing issue, right? Parsing is one side of the issue, yes. Only matters for declarative markup, of course. Hixie, is this the same problem you were mentioned as doesn't have fallback behavior? I would assume Hixie is also

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Hi Ian! :) I already enumerated and hopefully addressed most of your concerns in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1156.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1187.html, but I am

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 4:02 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: I don't buy the argument that an element's API can't change. To be more precise, such changes are very undesirable. We have many counter-examples already in the platform, for exampleobject's API can change dynamcially as it loads new plugins This is

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Hi Ian! :) I already enumerated and hopefully addressed most of your concerns in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1156.html and

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
transitive APIs. Blergh! TRANSIENT, not transitive. :DG

Re: [XHR2] Avoiding charset dependencies on user settings

2011-09-28 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 03:16:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: So it sounds like your argument is that we should do meta prescan because we can do it without breaking any new ground. Not because it's better

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: I think new elements are completely fine as long as they are inheriting directly from HTMLElement. It's when we start dealing with sub-typing HTMLTableElement and such is when they get into trouble. New elements are not fine, for reasons that

Re: The algorithm to determine encoding for FileReader.readAsText() doesn't account for predefined content types

2011-09-28 Thread Arun Ranganathan
On 7/12/11 8:20 PM, Eli Grey wrote: Shouldn't the algorithm for determining encoding for FileReader.readAsText() take in account the type property's charset parameter, if it exists? (e.g. a blob.type of text/plain;charset=UTF-8) Greetings Eli, Apologies for the long delay in response time.

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: I think new elements are completely fine as long as they are inheriting directly from HTMLElement. It's when we start dealing with sub-typing HTMLTableElement and such is when

RE: [IndexedDB] New version API checked in

2011-09-28 Thread Israel Hilerio
On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote: On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:11 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote: On

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: I think new elements are completely fine as long as they are inheriting directly from HTMLElement. It's when we start dealing

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 9/28/11 4:02 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: I don't buy the argument that an element's API can't change. To be more precise, such changes are very undesirable. We have many counter-examples already in the platform, for exampleobject's API can

Re: [File API] opaque string

2011-09-28 Thread Arun Ranganathan
On 8/31/11 3:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:22:05 +0200, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote: On 8/14/11 6:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Why can you not use characters legally allowed in IRIs? You can; they have to be escaped. Yeah sure, every URI is an IRI,

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: I think new elements are completely fine as long as they are

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: I think new

Re: [XHR2] Avoiding charset dependencies on user settings

2011-09-28 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: So it sounds like your argument is that we should do meta prescan because we can do it without breaking any new ground. Not because it's better or was

Re: [IndexedDB] New version API checked in

2011-09-28 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote: On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:11 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Sep

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 6:54 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: Yes, for instance. Basically any use cases that is about presentation rather than logic. Do such use cases need to expose new API on the element? -Boris

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-09-28 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 9/28/11 7:02 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: There are specific problems in both those cases because of interaction with the C++ layer, as far as I can tell. Those are there, sure. But they're not the only problems... The pure JS side of things, which is all that is needed for what we're talking

Dynamic behavior attachment does not work, subtyping elements could work (Was: Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components)

2011-09-28 Thread Dominic Cooney
Hixie wrote: snip … The pure JS side of things, which is all that is needed for what we're talking about here, needs nothing more than just adding a prototype, something which is not only well-supported by all browsers, but defined in increasingly careful detail. Interoperability is only

Re: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18

2011-09-28 Thread Alex Russell
I would, again, like to bring up the issue of non-constructable constructors as the default in WebIDL. It is onerous to down-stream authors to leave such a foot-gun in the spec if they're *expected* to provide constructors for most classes (and this is JS we're talking about, so they are) and it