I've been thinking about ways to make custom elements violate the
consistency principle less often and had a pretty awesome idea recently.
Unfortunately I won't be at TPAC, but I'd like to discuss this idea in
person. Can we setup a custom element discussion later in the year?
The current "synch
(please cc me if you want a response from me. I don't subscribe to *any*
mailing lists anymore.)
On October 22, 2015 at 6:32:44 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote:
> what, if anything, is blocking the spec's progression;
No blockers. Just waiting on implementations.
> what, if a
Pointer lock reached Candidate Recommendation in Dec 2013. [CR]
Implementation status: (Edge and Opera have changed status since October
2014)
Chrome: Implemented.
Firefox: Implemented with prefix.
Edge: Implemented in Preview Build 10532+ (Edge 13) [Edge]
Opera: Implemented.
Safari: No
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leith...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Well, since SVG 'use' is mostly about replicating the composed tree
> anyway, it seems that is should probably render the composed tree--e.g.,
> this seems natural, because use would "replicate" the host el
Well, since SVG 'use' is mostly about replicating the composed tree anyway, it
seems that is should probably render the composed tree--e.g., this seems
natural, because use would "replicate" the host element, which would then
render it's shadow DOM. The interactivity behaviors associated with th
