The reason is because all of the things that you do in every template
system (iteration, conditionals, etc) are also intended to be .
It kinda messes with the mind to get used to that idea, even for me I
occasionally need reminding...
http://memegenerator.net/instance/29459456
Brian Kardell
I have searched the archives and been unable to resolve this to a great
answer and I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct lest I
have to unwind things later as someone has recently made me second guess
what I thought was a logical understanding of things. Essentially,
x.wordpres
On Aug 21, 2012 6:49 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2012 6:18 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> >> So, in my current proposal, you can just set an onfoo attribute:
> >>
> >
On Aug 21, 2012 6:18 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> >>> On a somewhat unr
On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow also incorporate jquery
style
> > live event handlers here? See previous www-dom discussion about this: .
I
> > suppose we'd still just want l
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>>> Meh. I think this loses mos
On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
> > benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry about
whether
> > the nodes exist yet that makes CSS mo
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Several peeps now mentioned to me that the visibility of work in
> Bugzilla is not very high: a special step of watching an email is
> required to get all the updates in real time. I do make the regular
> update posts (as you ma
On Aug 13, 2012 4:49 AM, "Florian Bösch" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>
>> There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the use
>> of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism it
uses.
>> To allow custom tag name
27;t even originally a
big one, for example, but it is a pretty strong one now). If you did have
such a thing, I would think that there would have to be some sort of pretty
simple mechanism allowing the author of said component to, at a minimum,
tie back the information provided by "is=".
I am very opposed to this, they do different things. Having abilities
isn't a bad thing and numerous Web sites and libraries make use of qsa, not
just because find was not available but because different APIs shapes
interesting new possibilities, different ways of looking at problems,
etc... We so
. Maybe some of the very smart people on
this list have some thoughts?
-Brian
On May 17, 2012 3:52 PM, "Rick Waldron" wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rick Waldron
>> wrote:
>> >
17, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rick Waldron
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Brian Kardell
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, out of curiosity - do you have a lis
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> So, out of curiosity - do you have a list of things? I'm wondering
>> where some efforts fall in all of this - whether they are good or bad
>
So, out of curiosity - do you have a list of things? I'm wondering
where some efforts fall in all of this - whether they are good or bad
on this scale, etc... For example: querySelectorAll - it has a few
significant differences from jQuery both in terms of what it will
return (jquery uses getElem
Yes!! Thanks guys...that's exactly the distictions and clarifications I
was looking for...assuming these are acceptable distinctions, definitions
and goals.
On Apr 25, 2012 8:16 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> >
On Apr 25, 2012 7:22 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > works for string-based templating. Special
handling
> > of is not a big enough pain to justify adding a template
element.
> >
> > For Web Components and template systems that want to do D
And when that becomes the case, then using the source text becomes
"problematic" not just "less efficient" right?
On Apr 25, 2012 6:15 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
> > No. Also, as spec'd today, HTML Templates
> > (
> http://dvcs.w3.org/
That would be a major leap forward in the least right?
On Apr 25, 2012 3:41 PM, "Rafael Weinstein" wrote:
> Ok, so from the thread that Yehuda started last year,
>
> There seem to be three issues:
>
> 1) Interop (e.g. WRT IE)
> 2) Defining the behavior for all elements
> 3) HTML vs SVG vs MathML
>On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> Earlier in this thread I mentioned "I expect, however, that there
>> might be larger ideas behind why not to
>> do this in the sense of web components
Earlier in this thread I mentioned "I expect, however, that there
might be larger ideas behind why not to
do this in the sense of web components or declarative MDV-like data binding..."
I guess this is mostly a question for Dimitri or Dominic, but:
is used/referenced extensively in the Web Compon
It does feel very sensible that regardless of templates this is a useful
feature that we've long desired.
On Apr 24, 2012 8:28 AM, "Rafael Weinstein" wrote:
> No, I hadn't. Let me digest this thread. Much of what I'm implicitly
> asking has already been discussed. I'll repost if I have anything t
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Clint Hill wrote:
>>>> Hmm. I have to say tha
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Clint Hill wrote:
>> Hmm. I have to say that I disagree that your example below shows a
>> template within a template. That is IMO 1 template wherein there is
>> iteration syntax.
>
> The "iteration syntax"
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:46, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> I know of many, many templating systems and I have simply never (aside
>> from MDV) seen it in exactly this light (that is templates actually
>> embedded in o
> Yes. I think this issue is a distraction.
>
> Using the script tag for encoding opaque text contents is a hack, but
> it works as well as it can. AFAIC, The main drawback is that the
> contents cannot contain the string "". This will be the case
> for any new element we came up with for this purp
Mar 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> Whoops... that does not appear to be the same file. Appears that the
>> repo points to
>>
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/c2
:09 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> on: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/spec/templates/index.html
> as listed below, it returns "error: revision not found: spec".
>
> I think it should be:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
>
on: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/spec/templates/index.html
as listed below, it returns "error: revision not found: spec".
I think it should be:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> Hel
Yeah that was pretty much my feeling but always worth checking.
On Feb 23, 2012 7:13 PM, "Olli Pettay" wrote:
>
> On 02/24/2012 02:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> Just to be clear on this: what is the status of mutation observers?
>
>
> They are in DOM 4
Just to be clear on this: what is the status of mutation observers? If
there any chance shadow dom beats mutation observers to standardization? I
don't think so, but just checking... If that turned out to be the case it
could be crippling shadow dom until such a time..
Brian
On Feb 23, 2012 6:
Then why not something like
world
hello
On Feb 8, 2012 10:22 PM, "Ryosuke Niwa" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>> Are you essentially suggesting partials? Basically, one template can
>> contain another only by reference? Th
Are you essentially suggesting partials? Basically, one template can
contain another only by reference? Then you have something like a
corresponding tag or macro-ish thing whereby you can reference
(functionally include) on themplate from another?
That sidesteps the whole nested template parsing
On Dec 23, 2011 1:00 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > In your example, you lost me on this part:
> >
> > // Insert Bob's shadow tree under the election story box.
> > root.appendChild(docum
It feels like there
is a piece missing..
On Dec 22, 2011 8:16 PM, "Brian Kardell" wrote:
> Quick note : That is the single best draft prose I have ever read :)
> On Dec 22, 2011 6:56 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
>> BTW, added an example:
>>
Quick note : That is the single best draft prose I have ever read :)
On Dec 22, 2011 6:56 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
> BTW, added an example:
>
> dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#shadow-dom-example
>
> :DG<
>
d be great to have some kind of scripted
example, even if it is really basic for discussion... If not.. well... my
re-read seems to have gotten me a little lost.
-Brian
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Brian Kardell
> wrote:
&g
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> >> ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
> >> this what you had in mind?
> >
> > CSSOM interfaces are attached to
e expected console output?
-Brian
On Dec 21, 2011 11:58 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a
prefix?
> >
> > I also think some examples a
Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a prefix?
I also think some examples actually showing some handling of events and use
of css would be really helpful here... The upper boundary for css vs
inheritance I think would be made especially easier to understand with a
good e
Complexity and discussions about combinators seem to have prevented it from
getting into any draft despite lots of +1s. It is really different from
the rest of the selectors that exist today which are optimized like crazy
so it requires more in term of implementation than most to keep performance
> Right now, the spec does however handle that use case by doing this:
>
> document.querySelectorAll(":scope .foo", x);
>
> Where x is either an individual element, or an Array, NodeList or
numerically indexed object containing 0 or more Elements.
>
> (It does however limit the result only to elem
Yeah, I have to agree with the list here. If you allow one its unintuitive
to not allow it the same way in a group. The more exceptions and complexity
you add, the harder it is for someone to learn.
On Oct 25, 2011 10:16 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote:
> * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 2
So I spoke with Borris about this at some length offline yesterday and was
really shocked to discover that in the interest of supporting docs that do
not conform, there appears to be 100% implementation agreement in CSS (and
therefore qsa) that id selectors must match against all elements with the
Some pseudos can contain selector groups, so it would be more than just
split on comma.
On Oct 18, 2011 7:40 PM, "Alex Russell" wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:42, Alex Russell
> wrote:
> >> Ah, but we don't need to care what CSS th
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/18/11 5:23 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not that easy. Especially because you can reach all DOM objects
>>> from elements, so you have to lock down the entire API somehow.
>>
>>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/18/11 5:01 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> This too has come up in some discussions on CSS (CSSOM I think) that I
>> have had. In the right context - I don't think it would actually be
>> that hard. It
> This is _very_ hard to reasonably unless the browser can trust those
> functions to not do anything weird. Which of course it can't. So your
> options are either much slower selector matching or not having this. Your
> pick.
This too has come up in some discussions on CSS (CSSOM I think) that
I know that there were discussions that crossed over into CSS about a
@global or a :context which could sort of include things outside the
scope as part of the query but not be the subject. Does any of that
relate here?
- Brian
PS
> Out come the knives! You can't start a selector with a combina
Is x-mywidget necessarily more performant? Why?
On Oct 3, 2011 5:33 AM, "Roland Steiner" wrote:
>
> If I may briefly summarize the pros and cons of every approach discussed:
>
>
>
> Pros:
> - element name is inherently immutable
> - can provide arbitrary API, can (but does not have to) derive f
> In this particular case, I think anything that's implemented in all of the
> major browser engines should be an official standard, not just de facto.
Why only in this particular case? :) As a rule that seems like sound
guidance. If it's implemented everywhere, shouldn't you have to make
a pret
mplexity, incompatibility and unexpected side-effects.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> I suppose I should not have used that phrasing... It wasn't really
> accurate and it obscures my point... My point was that I actually
> wanted it to run in the background
@deprecated ? :)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> I agree. The reason I phrased it as I did was to contrast with my previous
>> remarks. The "children" attribute should be part of a standard, even though
>
f a
performance test and let it run for three days - during which it was
not "visible" 99.999% of the time. Should processing stop - or just
painting? Painting wont happen because the OS says it wont right?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On
Changing the semantics of a page when it is occluded by
> another page could be confusing.
>
> -Rob
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Brian Kardell [mailto:bkard...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:58 PM
>> To: Maciej Stachowiak
>> Cc: Ennals,
So... in describing this feature:
Is it really the visibility of the page that is being queried - or the
some kind of state of a window? Maybe it's a silly bit of semantics,
but it seems clearer to me that most of the things discussed here are
about a whole window/tab being "minimized" (either to
obert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> For example, I recently the Image Evolution demo from
>> http://www.canvasdemos.com/2009/07/15/image-evolution/ as a kind of a
>> performance test and let it run for three days
101 - 157 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
