Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Hayato Ito
getElement* functions have been removed, [1], [2], from the ShadowRoot. [1]: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/3d5f147812edaf74cc4f07d294836cafdf48534f [2]: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/6416fdfe7fc87e47aa89aac8ce5430389b9ad653 See also the relevant discussions: -

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Dominic Cooney
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Hi folks, Today’s ShadowDOM model is designed around only adding shadow roots to element in the ‘light side’. I assume this is intentional, but was hoping someone could describe why this design was

Re: [websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 3/26/15 10:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: If anyone is willing to help with the failure analysis, that would be very much appreciated. Taking a brief look at some of the failures in Firefox, in addition to the ones Olli already posted about:

[Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Travis Leithead
Hi folks, Today's ShadowDOM model is designed around only adding shadow roots to element in the 'light side'. I assume this is intentional, but was hoping someone could describe why this design was chosen? Or said another way, if there was an imperative API to _remove_ a shadow DOM, would that

Re: [websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread James Graham
On 26/03/15 15:37, Olli Pettay wrote: websockets/interfaces.html the test itself has bugs (uses old idlharness.js?). Also websockets/interfaces/WebSocket/events/013.html is buggy. Seems to rely on blink/presto's EventHandler behavior, which is not what the specs says should happen. If

Re: [websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 3/26/15 10:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: * All results http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/all.html * 2 passes http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/less-than-2.html Overall these results are pretty good: 97% of the 495 tests have two or more passes. Arthur, It looks like

RE: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

2015-03-26 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl] Depending on the changes we make based on https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Shadow-DOM:-Contentious-Bits this might already be the case. Also, I believe currently the Web Components polyfill makes some assumptions about all of Web

RE: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Daniel Freedman [mailto:dfre...@google.com] How would you style these shadow children? Would the main document CSS styles affect these children? I don’t know :-) Let's assume that main document CSS styles wouldn't affect them, as that seems to be a fundamental requirement for shadowDOM.

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Elliott Sprehn
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagn...@google.com] Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs that are very similar to existing node list management, e.g., appendShadowChild(),

Re: [websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 3/26/15 1:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 3/26/15 10:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: * All results http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/all.html * 2 passes http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/less-than-2.html Overall these results are pretty good: 97% of the 495 tests have

RE: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

2015-03-26 Thread Travis Leithead
Microsoft supports publishing this. Thanks to all involved! - Subject:CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:51:45 -0400 From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org As

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Justin Fagnani
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagn...@google.com] Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs that are very similar to existing node list management, e.g., appendShadowChild(),

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Today’s ShadowDOM model is designed around only adding shadow roots to element in the ‘light side’. I assume this is intentional, but was hoping someone could describe why this design was chosen? Or said

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Daniel Freedman
How would you style these shadow children? Would the main document CSS styles affect these children? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagn...@google.com] Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Mar 26, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: You make a series of excellent points. In the sense that you have a new set of nodes to manage holistically, then having some sort of “document” container does makes sense for that (a ShadowRoot) in

Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

2015-03-26 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Are we OK with a non-URL-based creation model (as used today) being fairly different from a URL-based creation model? I think so. [A] breaking change for existing implementations. Depending on the

Re: [websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 3/26/15 1:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: It looks like the tests that are failed with an Error as opposed to a Fail are not being counted in the 2 passes list? And the for http://www.w3c-test.org/websockets/keeping-connection-open/001.html which is all-Timeout. -Boris

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Justin Fagnani
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Hi folks, Today’s ShadowDOM model is designed around only adding shadow roots to element in the ‘light side’. I assume this is intentional, but was hoping someone could describe why this design was

RE: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagn...@google.com] Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs that are very similar to existing node list management, e.g., appendShadowChild(), insertShadowBefore(), removeShadowChild(), replaceShadowChild(), shadowChildren[],

RE: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Travis Leithead
You make a series of excellent points. In the sense that you have a new set of nodes to manage holistically, then having some sort of “document” container does makes sense for that (a ShadowRoot) in order to place all your search/navigation APIs. You got me thinking though—getElementById is

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

2015-03-26 Thread Elliott Sprehn
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Mar 26, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: You make a series of excellent points. In the sense that you have a new set of nodes to manage holistically, then having some sort of

[websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread Arthur Barstow
Earlier today I ran the Web Sockets tests on Chrome 41, Chrome/Canary 43, FF Nightly 39, IE 11, and Opera 12 and pushed the results to the test-results repo: * All results http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/all.html * 2 passes

Re: [websockets] Test results available

2015-03-26 Thread Olli Pettay
On 03/26/2015 04:51 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Earlier today I ran the Web Sockets tests on Chrome 41, Chrome/Canary 43, FF Nightly 39, IE 11, and Opera 12 and pushed the results to the test-results repo: * All results http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/all.html * 2 passes