Re: Art steps down - thank you for everything

2016-01-29 Thread Alex Russell
Sorry to hear you're leaving us, Art. Your skills and humor will be missed. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > Thank you Art. > > You carried out this group and community over so many years. > > Your first email to the AC was entitled "Just say NO?" as a

Re: Informal Service Worker working session

2015-07-17 Thread Alex Russell
Thanks everyone! Started a draft agenda page here; please pile in! https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/wiki/july_20_2015_meeting_agenda On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Benjamin Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote

Informal Service Worker working session

2015-07-04 Thread Alex Russell
Hey all, Apologies for the late notice. As many SW participants are going to be in town for the WebApps F2F on the 21st, Google San Francisco is hosting a working day, 9am-5pm PST on July 20th to work through open issues and discuss future work. If you're attending, or would like to, simply

Re: WebApp installation via the browser

2014-06-02 Thread Alex Russell
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any platforms providing the feature? Has the feature gained any traction among the platform vendors? The webapps platform that we use

Re: WebKit interest in ServiceWorkers (was Re: [manifest] Utility of bookmarking to home screen, was V1 ready for wider review)

2014-02-18 Thread Alex Russell
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.commailto: art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group

Re: [webcomponents] Imperative API for Insertion Points

2014-02-16 Thread Alex Russell
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 16, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:30 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Hi all

Re: [webcomponents] Encapsulation and defaulting to open vs closed (was in www-style)

2014-02-15 Thread Alex Russell
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote

Re: [webcomponents] Imperative API for Insertion Points

2014-02-15 Thread Alex Russell
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Hi all, I’d like to propose one solution for [Shadow]: Specify imperative API for node distribution https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18429 because select content attribute doesn’t satisfy the needs of

Re: [manifest] Utility of bookmarking to home screen, was V1 ready for wider review

2014-02-15 Thread Alex Russell
what we've really won. Happy for this to go to LC, but wouldn't recommend that Chrome For Android implement. On Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alex Russell wrote: I further think that the marginal utility in bookmarking something to the homescreen (sorry, yes, I'm focusing on mobile

Re: [webcomponents] Encapsulation and defaulting to open vs closed (was in www-style)

2014-02-14 Thread Alex Russell
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 2/14/14 5:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Also, I think that the Type 2

Re: [manifest] V1 ready for wider review

2014-02-14 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres mar...@marcosc.com wrote: The editors of the [manifest] spec have now closed all substantive issues for v1. The spec defines the following: * A link relationship

Re: [webcomponents] Encapsulation and defaulting to open vs closed (was in www-style)

2014-02-13 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Until we can agree on this, Type 2 feels like an attractive nuisance and, on reflection, one that I think we should punt to compilers like

Re: [webcomponents] Encapsulation and defaulting to open vs closed (was in www-style)

2014-02-13 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: In discussion with Elliot and Erik, there appears to be an additional complication: any of the DOM manipulation methods that aren't locked down

Re: [webcomponents] Encapsulation and defaulting to open vs closed (was in www-style)

2014-02-12 Thread Alex Russell
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 11, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org

Re: RE : RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-06 Thread Alex Russell
fOn Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Ke-Fong Lin ke-fong@4d.com wrote: 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are much less error prone. JS developers are not C++ developers. Whenever possible, it's just better to make things more simpler and convenient.

Re: RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-06 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 12/4/13, 2:43 AM, Ke-Fong Lin wrote: IMHO, we should make sync APIs available in both dedicated and shared workers. In order of importance: 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2013-11-27 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote: Stepping back a bit, I think we're struggling to ignore the elephant in the room. This elephant is the fact that there's no specification (or API) that defines (or provides facilities to control) when rendering happens.

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-14 Thread Alex Russell
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Tobie Langel wrote: On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: This is an entirely different conversation though. I don't know the answer to why sync interfaces are there and expected, except that some would argue that it makes the code easier

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-14 Thread Alex Russell
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.orgjavascript:; wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comjavascript:; wrote: I don't understand why that's true. Workers have a message

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-14 Thread Alex Russell
, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'slightly...@google.com'); wrote: My *first* approach to this annoyance would be to start adding some async primitives to the platform that don't suck so hard; e.g., Futures/Promises. Saying that you should do

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-07 Thread Alex Russell
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: I seem to recall we contemplated people writing libraries on top of IDB from the beginning. I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. It's not bad as an assumption, but it can quickly turn into an excuse for API design malpractice because

IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-06 Thread Alex Russell
Comments inline. Adding some folks from the IDB team at Google to the thread as well as public-webapps. On Sunday, February 17, 2013, Miko Nieminen wrote: 2013/2/15 Shwetank Dixit shweta...@opera.com Why did you feel it was necessary to write a layer on top of IndexedDB? I think this is

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-06 Thread Alex Russell
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'slightly...@google.com'); wrote: Comments inline. Adding some folks from the IDB team at Google to the thread as well as public-webapps. (I

Re: Monkeypatching document.createElement() is wrong

2013-02-12 Thread Alex Russell
+others who have been involved in the design phase of the Google proposal So there are several viable points in the design space here. I'll try to outline them quickly: 1. An internal lifecycle driver for element + shadow creation. In this strategy, an element's constructor either calls

Re: Please add constructors for File and FileList

2013-02-06 Thread Alex Russell
Greetings Victor! On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Victor Costan wrote: Dear Web Applications WG, 1) Please add a File constructor. This has cropped up a few times :) I've logged a spec bug for this feature: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20887 Could you flesh out

Re: [webcomponents]: Changing API from constructable ShadowRoot to factory-like

2012-12-03 Thread Alex Russell
Sorry for the late response. Adding more create* methods feels like a bug. I understand that there are a couple of concerns/arguments here: - Current implementations that aren't self-hosting are going to have trouble with the idea of unattached (floating) ShadowRoot instances - As a

Re: CSP 1.1 DOM design

2012-11-05 Thread Alex Russell
Inline. On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Mike West mk...@google.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comwrote: Looking at Section 3.4 of the CSP 1.1 draft [1], I'm noticing that the IDL specified feels very, very strange to use from the JS perspective

Re: CSP 1.1 DOM design

2012-11-05 Thread Alex Russell
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Le 05/11/2012 11:32, Alex Russell a écrit : On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 11/4/12 3:58 PM, Alex Russell wrote: DOMString toString(); This should probably

Re: CSP 1.1 DOM design

2012-11-05 Thread Alex Russell
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Le 05/11/2012 12:50, Alex Russell a écrit : On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Le 05/11/2012 11:32, Alex Russell a écrit : On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar

CSP 1.1 DOM design

2012-11-04 Thread Alex Russell
Hi all, Looking at Section 3.4 of the CSP 1.1 draft [1], I'm noticing that the IDL specified feels very, very strange to use from the JS perspective. For instance, the name document.SecurityPolicy would indicate to a mere JS hacker like me that the SecurityPolicy is a class from which instances

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-05-02 Thread Alex Russell
What Tab said. On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Clint Hill clint.h...@gmail.com 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

Re: [webcomponents] Custom Elements Spec

2012-05-02 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: Based on the hallway conversations at the F2F, here are some notes for the upcoming Custom Elements spec. Custom tags vs. is attribute - is attribute is awkward, overly verbose - custom tags introduce local

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-31 Thread Alex Russell
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: Not necessarily.  It depends what exactly it means for a selector to contain :scope for determining whether or not to enable the implied :scope

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-31 Thread Alex Russell
What Tab said = ) On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote: On 20/10/11 3:50 AM, Alex Russell wrote: I strongly agree that it should be an Array *type*, but I think just returning

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-31 Thread Alex Russell
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote: On 20/10/11 3:50 AM, Alex Russell wrote: I strongly agree that it should be an Array *type*, but I think just returning a plain Array

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-31 Thread Alex Russell
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote: On 31/10/11 1:56 PM, Alex Russell wrote: Live NodeList instances don't need to be considered here. They're the result of an API which generates them, and that API can be described in terms of Proxies. No need

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-31 Thread Alex Russell
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 10/31/11 2:03 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: On 31/10/11 1:56 PM, Alex Russell wrote: Live NodeList instances don't need to be considered here. They're the result of an API which generates them, and that API can

Re: Is BlobBuilder needed?

2011-10-25 Thread Alex Russell
+1! On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi everyone, It was pointed out to me on twitter that BlobBuilder can be replaced with simply making Blob constructable. I.e. the following code: var bb = new BlobBuilder(); bb.append(blob1); bb.append(blob2);

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-20 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: On 2011-10-19 16:08, Alex Russell wrote: On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Lachlan Huntlachlan.h...@lachy.id.au  wrote: I have attempted to address this problem before and the algorithm for parsing a *scoped

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-20 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Lachlan and I have been having an...um...*spirited* twitter discussion regarding querySelectorAll, the (deceased?) queryScopedSelectorAll

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-20 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Lachlan and I have been having an...um...*spirited* twitter discussion regarding querySelectorAll, the (deceased?) queryScopedSelectorAll

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-20 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: On 2011-10-20 12:50, Alex Russell wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jonas Sickingjo...@sicking.cc  wrote: Oh, and as a separate issue. I think .findAll should return a plain old JS Array. Not a NodeList

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-20 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/20/11 7:18 AM, Alex Russell wrote: No we don't. The fact that there's someone else who has a handle to the list and can mutate it underneath you There is no sane way to mutate the list on the part of the browser

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-19 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/18/11 8:08 PM, Alex Russell wrote: The other excuse is that adding special cases (which is what you're asking for) slows down all the non-special-case codepaths.  That may be fine for _your_ usage

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-19 Thread Alex Russell
at 6:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/18/11 7:38 PM, Alex Russell wrote: The resolution I think is most natural is to split on , That fails with :any, with the expanded :not syntax, on attr selectors, etc. You can split on ',' while observing proper paren and quote

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-19 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:22:46 +0900, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Yehuda is representing jQuery. I'll take his opinion as the global view unless he choses to say he's representing a personal opinion. You

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-19 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: On 2011-10-18 18:42, Alex Russell wrote: Related and equally important, that querySelector and querySelectorAll are often referred to by the abbreviation QSA suggests that its name is bloated and improved versions

QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
Lachlan and I have been having an...um...*spirited* twitter discussion regarding querySelectorAll, the (deceased?) queryScopedSelectorAll, and :scope. He asked me to continue here, so I'll try to keep it short: The rooted forms of querySelector and querySelectorAll are mis-designed. Discussions

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Lachlan and I have been having an...um...*spirited* twitter discussion regarding querySelectorAll, the (deceased?) queryScopedSelectorAll, and :scope. He asked me to continue here, so I'll try to keep it short

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:42, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Ah, but we don't need to care what CSS thinks of our DOM-only API. We can live and let live by building on :scope and specifying find* as syntactic

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Lachlan and I have been having an...um...*spirited* twitter discussion regarding querySelectorAll, the (deceased?) queryScopedSelectorAll, and :scope. He asked me to continue here, so I'll

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
any circumstances - begin a selector with a combinator - even if there appears to be wide agreement that it makes sense in a finite set of circumstances? On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Lachlan and I have been having an...um...*spirited* twitter

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/18/11 4:20 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:  * Speeding up certain operations like `#foo` and `body`. There is *no    excuse* for it being possible to implement userland hacks that    improve on the performance of

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
with :scope On Oct 18, 2011 7:40 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:42, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: Ah, but we don't need to care what CSS thinks of our DOM-only API

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Sean Hogan shogu...@westnet.com.au wrote: On 19/10/11 7:20 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: I agree entirely. I have asked a number of practitioner friends about this scenario: div id=parent p id=childspan id=inlineContent/span/p /div  

Re: XBL2 is dead.

2011-10-06 Thread Alex Russell
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:30:24 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: Further, instead of packaging Web Components into one omnibus offering, we will likely end up with several free-standing specs or spec

Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-10-03 Thread Alex Russell
+1 What Charles said = ) On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: 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

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

Re: [DOM4] Remove Node.isSameNode

2011-09-16 Thread Alex Russell
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Sean Hogan shogu...@westnet.com.au wrote: On 10/09/11 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Sean Hoganshogu...@westnet.com.au  wrote: On 10/09/11 3:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: It's a completely useless function. It just implements

Re: HTMLElement.register--giving components tag names

2011-09-06 Thread Alex Russell
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Dominic Cooney wrote: I think the XBL approach is far superior here -- have authors use existing elements, and use XBL to augment them. For example, if you want the user to select a country from a map,

Re: Custom tags over wire, was Re: HTMLElement.register--giving components tag names

2011-09-02 Thread Alex Russell
Since Dimitri has already said everything I would, and better, I just want to very quickly second his point about where we are today vs. where we fear we might be: non-trivial apps have *already* given up on HTML. Suggesting that there's an un-semantic future that will be *caused* by the component

Re: Custom tags over wire, was Re: HTMLElement.register--giving components tag names

2011-09-02 Thread Alex Russell
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 9/2/11 12:10 PM, Alex Russell wrote: Since Dimitri has already said everything I would, and better, I just want to very quickly second his point about where we are today vs. where we fear we might be: non-trivial apps

Re: Custom tags over wire, was Re: HTMLElement.register--giving components tag names

2011-09-02 Thread Alex Russell
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 9/2/11 3:00 PM, Alex Russell wrote: On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com  wrote: On 9/2/11 12:10 PM, Alex Russell wrote: Since Dimitri has already said everything I would, and better, I

Re: Mutation events replacement

2011-06-30 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: This new proposal solves both these by making all the modifications

Re: Model-driven Views

2011-04-28 Thread Alex Russell
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 4/22/11 8:35 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: Myself and a few other chromium folks have been working on a design for a formalized separation between

Re: Model-driven Views

2011-04-28 Thread Alex Russell
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: What do you think? - Is this

Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?

2010-12-21 Thread Alex Russell
How 'bouts a shorter version of Tab's suggestion: Web Components ? On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:51:39 +0100, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:24 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Looking at the use cases

Re: [XHR2] FormData for form

2010-09-14 Thread Alex Russell
I have a preference for the second syntax. These sorts of classes should always be new-able. On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi All, There was some discussions regarding the syntax for generating a FormData object based on the data in an existing form.

addEventListener naming

2009-04-24 Thread Alex Russell
From this thread on whatwg: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-April/019379.html and per Hixie's request that I re-direct this particular discussion here: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-April/019381.html The DOM function addEventListener

Re: [selectors-api] SVG WG Review of Selectors API

2009-01-27 Thread Alex Russell
, but is the selectors API actually going to be this impoverished? If so, I fear it will prevent the actual mixing of SVG and HTML in meaningful ways. Regards On Jan 26, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Alex Russell wrote: On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Alex Russell wrote: Can

Re: [selectors-api] SVG WG Review of Selectors API

2009-01-26 Thread Alex Russell
On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Alex Russell wrote: Can this be represented in a :not() clause somehow? Foisting more work onto script is the wrong answer. No. How about not yet? Needing to do this filtering in script is clearly a spec bug. QSA is already littered

Re: [access-control] Rename spec?

2009-01-14 Thread Alex Russell
I do agree the title is important and support either of the proposed new titles (preference goes with Resource). One question I have here is whether Domain would be more accurate than Origin. Domain does not capture significance of the scheme and port, while Origin does. I'm updating the

Re: [access-control] Rename spec?

2009-01-14 Thread Alex Russell
: On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:52:50 +0100, Alex Russell a...@dojotoolkit.org wrote: I do agree the title is important and support either of the proposed new titles (preference goes with Resource). One question I have here is whether Domain would be more accurate than Origin. Domain does not capture