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

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28211

Travis Leithead [MSFT]  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #2 from Travis Leithead [MSFT]  ---
I've thought some more about this, and worked through the cross-origin use
cases a little more, and now I'm agreeing with you much more that this coupling
of Shadow DOM and imports is a little too tight.

The Cross-origin usage scenario will definitely involve a URL though. And my
most recent thoughts are that the URL doesn't apply so much to ShadowDOM as it
does to the custom element binding. Perhaps I'll put together a more complete
draft of this thinking and float it by the WG.

Resolving this bug for now. Thanks!

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

[Bug 26238] [new feature] Add follow redirects back

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26238

Anne  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #6 from Anne  ---
fetch() it is.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 28343 ***

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

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

[Simon Pieters]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:52:25 +0100, Arthur Barstow   
wrote:


As previously mentioned on [p-w], the test results for Web Messaging  
[All] indicate significant interoperability with only two tests that  
have less than two passes [<2]. The two tests, including a short  
analysis of the failure, are:


1. ; this test  
failure (which passes on Firefox) can be considered more of a Web IDL  
implementation issue and thus not a significant interop issue.


2. ; this  
test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug  
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)  
that is expected to be fixed.


Cindy created a Draft PR [PR] that includes Hixie's updates since the  
[CR] was published (but not the PortCollection interface [PC] which is  
not broadly implemented). Overall, we consider the changes since the CR  
as non-substantive bug fixes and clarifications that align the spec with  
current implementations, and that the test suite tests the updated spec.  
See [Diff] for all of changes between the CR and the draft PR and note  
the draft PR's status section includes a short summary of the changes.


As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed  
Recommendation of Web Messaging using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement  
with this CfC means you consider the test results shows interoperability  
and the changes since CR are not substantive.


If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to  
this e-mail by March 28 at the latest. Positive response is preferred  
and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the  
proposal. If there are no non-resolvable objections to this proposal,  
the motion will carry and we will request the PR be published.


Opera supports publishing.


-Thanks, ArtB

[p-w]  


[All] 
[<2] 
[PR] 
[CR] 
[PC] 
[Diff] 







--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software