Re: [XHR] null response prop in case of invalid JSON

2016-04-26 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Kirill Dmitrenko wrote: > I've found in the spec of XHR Level 2 that if a malformed JSON's received > from a server, the response property would be set to null. But null is a > valid JSON, so, if I understand correctly, there is no way to

Re: [Custom Elements] Not requiring hyphens in names.

2016-04-22 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 3:08 AM, /#!/JoePea wrote: > I really believe that we should be allowed to name our elements with any > name we wish, and that they should override native elements (that is future > proof), and that overriding should be on some type of encapsulated basis

Re: [Web Components] Editor for Custom Elements

2016-04-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Léonie Watson wrote: > Which means we're looking for someone (or more than one someone) to edit > Custom Elements. Web Components are a key part of the Web Platform, so it's > an interesting time to be part of the group working on Custom Elements (and

Re: Telecon / meeting on first week of April for Web Components

2016-04-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote: > I’m unfamiliar with WebEx. If Chaals or someone wants to make a strong push > to use that, please set up the call and send out instructions for joining. FYI: we're using Hangouts. If anyone cannot join please tell us on IRC

Re: Telecon / meeting on first week of April for Web Components

2016-04-04 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Jan Miksovsky wrote: > I have no idea how to settle this question. If everyone else is happy using > WebEx, and someone else can set up the video call, I certainly don’t have a > problem with that. (My only issue would be if the meeting

Re: Telecon / meeting on first week of April for Web Components

2016-03-31 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Jan Miksovsky wrote: > If everyone could indicate their availability by, say, this Friday, 4/1, we > can see what time works best for everyone. Done, I've assumed that the time was California time, meaning I'm "available" daily 7-9PM

Re: Telecon / meeting on first week of April for Web Components

2016-03-28 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:04 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile >> wrote: >> I'll attend from Europe. Is there a preferred day, and how long do you >> anticipate this being? > > I think the first or the second

Re: [clipboard] kill onbefore* events?

2016-03-09 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote: > In my personal (and humble) opinion it's not actually a benefit for > developers to have only one event that will fire a lot and indicate > lots of different things. I accept that library authors want a >

Re: [custom-elements] Invoking lifecycle callbacks before invoking author scripts

2016-02-23 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > Hi, > > We propose to change the lifecycle callback to be fired both before invoking > author scripts (e.g. for dispatching events) and before returning to author > scripts. > > Without this change, event listeners that

Re: Service worker F2F meeting - 26th Jan - San Francisco

2016-01-04 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Conrad Irwin wrote: > I'd be interested in attending as a relatively mute observer. We've been > using service workers for a while now, and I'd like to get more involved. Great, you're in, no need to be mute though. We have three more

Re: Custom elements contentious bits

2015-12-10 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > A bit ago Jan put together an initial draft of the "contentious bits" for > custom elements, in preparation for our January F2F. Today I went through and > expanded on the issues he put together, with the result at >

Re: [web components] proposed meetings: 15 dec / 29 jan

2015-11-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > What outstanding problems are you thinking of? Again, not I, but Hayato Ito raised these. I just happen to agree. He emailed this list on November 2:

Re: [web components] proposed meetings: 15 dec / 29 jan

2015-11-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: > Our proposal is to look for a host on 15 December on the West Coast, for a > meeting primarily focused on Shadow DOM, and another on 29 January in the > Bay area for one around Custom Elements. The agenda can

Re: TPAC Topic: Using ES2015 Modules in HTML

2015-10-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > Can we discuss how we can integrate ES2015 modules into HTML on Tuesday, > October 27th at TPAC? Pretty sure Tuesday has been reserved for service workers discussion. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: [web-animations] Should computedTiming return a live object?

2015-10-02 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Brian Birtles wrote: > I'd like to change this API, probably to one of the following (listed > roughly in order of preference). I wonder if anyone else has an opinion > on this? I'm curious as to what this maps to closer to the metal. That

Re: Normative references to Workers.

2015-09-21 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/21/15 5:54 AM, Ms2ger wrote: >> Why? > > I think the rationale was mentioned in > . Ms2ger made a valid point. Workers is actively being

Re: Shadow DOM spec for v1 is ready to be reviewed

2015-09-09 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Hayato Ito wrote: > I think the spec should address these issues and define the well-defined > behavior clearly. The current spec looks too lazy because it only mention > the following: > >> Window object named properties [HTML] must access the

Re: Shadow DOM spec for v1 is ready to be reviewed

2015-09-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Hayato Ito wrote: > - Some of the remaining issues are difficult to address in the Shadow DOM > spec because it requires non-trivial monkey patches to DOM. I have a plan > to upstream the Shadow DOM spec into DOM in the near future. After that,

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

2015-09-01 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > I think you’re missing the point. The point of these documentation is to > know exactly what the patch author was looking at the time he wrote the > patch. If there was a typo in the spec, that’s an important information.

Re: PSA: publish WD of "WebIDL Level 1"

2015-08-31 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > Let's say we implement some feature based on Web IDL published as of today. > I'm going to refer that in my source code commit message. Future readers of > my code has no idea what I was implementing when they look at my

Re: [worker] Integration of WorkerGlobalScope and AbstractWorker

2015-08-24 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bang Seongbeom bangseongb...@hotmail.com wrote: The current spec says that the internal worker scope is WorkerGlobalScope(or Dedi-, Shared-), the external is AbstractWorker(or Worker, Shared-.) But it destroys consistency with Window object and confuses users

Re: Custom elements Constructor-Dmitry baseline proposal

2015-08-18 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Thank you for writing this up. Would be interesting to hear what Maciej and Ryosuke think. On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: - Use symbols instead of strings for custom element callbacks. So the way this is done is that they are publicly available on the

Re: Copying multi-range selection

2015-08-15 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Richard Ishida ish...@w3.org wrote: my question was specifically, why do it in a non-standard way for bidi text? (typical scenario is split visual but one range internally) Which is not great for users, right? Also, as Addison points out, it's unclear how that

Re: Copying multi-range selection

2015-08-15 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Richard Ishida ish...@w3.org wrote: what's the use case driving this, and where are the requirements coming from? i ask because i'm inclined to think that the circumstances in which this would a produce useful results, given the way it carves up the actual

Re: Copying multi-range selection

2015-08-14 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: We've been recently exploring ways to select bidirectional text and content that uses new CSS layout modes such as flex box in visually contagious manner. Because visually contagious range of content may not be contagious

Re: Custom Element Action Items?

2015-08-12 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Wilson Page wilsonp...@me.com wrote: I was unable to attend the latest F2F so would like clarification on what the takeaway action items were and who is responsible for pushing them forward. I don't believe this information was included in the minutes. I think

Re: [charter] What is the plan for Streams API?

2015-08-10 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Given Takeshi's status it seems premature to speculate. The current [TR] is now mostly void of content although it might be good to gut it even more as well as to add a clear note that indicates that work has stopped

Re: PSA: publish WD of WebIDL Level 1

2015-08-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: This is, at a minimum, incremental goodness. It's better than leaving the prior L1 published document around--which already tripped up a few folks on my team recently. I strongly +1 it. If your team looks at

Re: PSA: publish WD of WebIDL Level 1

2015-08-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: The L2 version (by Cameron and Boris) has not been published as a TR and if there no objections to proceeding as above, I will start working on making this all happen. I still don't understand why L1 is even published.

Re: [charter] What is the plan for Streams API?

2015-08-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Given this status, and in the absence of other feedback, I think the Streams API should remain in WebApps' charter (at least for now). Then later, the work may proceed (if there is still agreement an additional API

W3C's version of XMLHttpRequest should be abandoned

2015-08-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
According to Art https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/Overview.html is no longer maintained. It should redirect to https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ therefore. According to Art the plan of record is to still pursue https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/xhr-1/Overview.html but that was

Re: [clipboard] document.execCommand and clipboard actions

2015-08-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen hst...@mozilla.com wrote: so I hit a bit of an issue: I've written some parts of the clipboard spec with the assumption that it will be invoked from a document.execCommand('copy'/'cut'/'paste') call (although 'paste' would

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

2015-07-17 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl] It fails atomically, based on the definition of innerHTML. What if that 512 KiB of HTML contains img src=foo.png? Following definitions, I assume we fire off the network

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

2015-07-17 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 7/17/15 10:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: If I look at update the image data step 6 it seems it might be fetched at a later point? Yes, but in practice the fetch will go ahead, no? There's nothing to prevent it from

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

2015-07-17 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: I have a related question: what happens if the constructor throws? Right, this is the kind of thing we need to figure out. !DOCTYPE html script use strict; window.throwingMode = true; class XFoo extends

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

2015-07-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: Even if it can be specced/implemented, should it? I.e., why would this be OK where MutationEvents are not? Apart from the verbosity and performance issues with mutation events, I think the main problem with mutation

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

2015-07-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: Ah OK, thanks. Is there any way to get a consensus from Mozilla as a whole, preferably ahead of the F2F? I think the problem is that nobody has yet tried to figure out what invariants that would break and how we could

Re: [WebIDL] T[] migration

2015-07-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Should we consider keeping T[] in WebIDL, but having it map to FrozenArray? We should just update the relevant specifications. We'll continue to hit this as IDL still needs to evolve quite a bit. --

Re: [WebIDL] T[] migration

2015-07-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: But would just abandoning T[] break anything elsewhere? Is there any value in having it mapped and deprecated? If specifications were written by a team the size of a browser that might be reasonable, but it really seems like more

Re: Custom Elements: createdCallback cloning

2015-07-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote: Well, this printing case would just clone the final flattened tree without the original document knowing any cloning happened. (scripts aren't suppose to run in Gecko's static clone documents, which print preview on linux and

Re: Custom Elements: createdCallback cloning

2015-07-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: Yes. I am trying to interpret this in the context of the esdiscuss thread you linked. I'm not sure I understand the problem with private state, actually. Private state is allocated for DOM wrappers in Chromium today

Re: Custom Elements: createdCallback cloning

2015-07-12 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: I think the most important question here, though, is not constructors or prototype swizzling. I guess that depends on what you want to enable. If you want to recreate existing elements in terms of Custom Elements, you

Re: Async Image - ImageData conversion

2015-07-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: I thought it would be more confusing to have separate competing proposals in one document? They are more like three revisions of the same document anyway, the latest one including all feedback and rationale so far:

Re: Async Image - ImageData conversion

2015-07-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: I'm new to writing specs and when I first looked ReSpec had templates and a guide - is there something similar for the HTML standard style spec? I think you can tweak ReSpec to do the right thing, though most new

Re: Async Image - ImageData conversion

2015-07-03 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: These conversions are covered by what I proposed in my previous email, so I drafted another spec with them: https://www.scirra.com/labs/specs/imagedata-conversion-extensions.html Could you please put them all in a single

Re: Components F2F

2015-07-02 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Is Google hosting this meeting as well? Alternatively, would other browser vendors (e.g. Mozilla) willing to host it this time? If we decide quickly it seems I can reserve a room at Mozilla for 18 people in SF, maybe 22 in

Custom Elements: createdCallback cloning

2015-07-02 Thread Anne van Kesteren
In the interest of moving forward I tried to more seriously consider Dmitry's approach. Based on es-discussion discussion https://esdiscuss.org/topic/will-any-new-features-be-tied-to-constructors it seems likely new JavaScript features (such as private state) will be tied to object creation. This

Components F2F

2015-06-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Can someone update https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/WebComponentsJuly2015Meeting with a bit more information? I hear it might be in Mountain View? Will we have sufficient time to cover both Custom Elements and Shadow DOM? And could the drafts maybe be updated to cover what has been agreed to so

Re: Async Image - ImageData conversion

2015-06-25 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: The drawback of adding toBlob/toImageData to the various things ImageData can be constructed from is that it's a bit more spec complexity, but I don't see that as a showstopper, necessarily. We should probably stick to the

Re: URL bugs and next steps

2015-06-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: That's great but are we getting the implementations aligned? Yes, slowly. My understanding is that implementations are still differing from the spec and we weren't getting them to move. Reasons for that are differing

Re: URL bugs and next steps

2015-06-16 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: Things haven't been moving at fixing the bugs in the URL specification. Sam has circulated a list of issues but did not receive much feedback. I figured the best way to understand to make progress would be to have a call so

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-15 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote: On 14 June 2015 at 01:41, Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk wrote: it makes more sense to work on stylability of standard elements. I'd like to keep the is= construct (or better name) in the knowledge that it's a

Re: [service_worker] Notification constructor

2015-06-15 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Conrad Irwin conrad.ir...@gmail.com wrote: I've been implementing some things with service workers, and it's a little bit frustrating to have to use self.registration.showNotification(hi!) instead of the more normal: new Notification(hi!) Is there a

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Léonie Watson lwat...@paciellogroup.com wrote: Is there a succinct explanation of why the is= syntax is disliked? Rather than button is=my-button/button you want my-button/my-button that just gets all the button goodness through composition/inheritance.

Re: Writing spec algorithms in ES6?

2015-06-12 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 6/11/15 4:32 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: I noticed that the CSS Color Module Level 4 actually does this, and it seems pretty nice: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-color/#dom-rgbcolor-rgbcolorcolor I should note that the ES

Re: Clipboard API: remove dangerous formats from mandatory data types

2015-06-10 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Are you suggesting/proposing new normative requirement(s) in the spec proper and/or new text in the security/privacy considerations [1]? https://w3c.github.io/clipboard-apis/#other-security-and-privacy-considerations

Re: Clipboard API: remove dangerous formats from mandatory data types

2015-06-10 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen hst...@mozilla.com wrote: Developing web browsers and their specs means paranoia should be part of your job description. It is a concern and I'm not sure how to solve it. Well we should be able to allow some things here. Either

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-09 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Justin Fagnani justinfagn...@google.com wrote: And I'm still concerned that removing is= would severely harm the cases where you need access to special parsing behavior like template and style. With synchronous constructors you could imagine setting the parsing

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-06-09 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alice Boxhall aboxh...@google.com wrote: - In the time between v1 and v2 (however long that ends up being) we are left without any way to solve this problem, assuming we don't come up with something else for v1. If developers start using custom elements where

Re: CORS performance proposal

2015-06-08 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote: The security properties bother me a little. Alt-Svc is showing us that we can't just define a header field like that without some serious analysis. Same goes for a site-wide file. See crossdomain.xml. However,

Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?

2015-05-20 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: Given that all vendors agreed that C can wait until v2, we could just focus on concretizing the slots proposal and then put a lid on Shadow DOM v1. What do you think, folks? This probably works for Mozilla. It would

Re: Custom Elements: insert/remove callbacks

2015-05-09 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 5/8/15 1:42 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: That actually seems pretty similar to what we have, ours is in the form of: Node#insertedInto(Node insertionPoint) Node#removedFrom(Node insertionPoint) To be clear, ours is also

Re: Custom Elements: insert/remove callbacks

2015-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Justin Fagnani justinfagn...@google.com wrote: How are you supposed to tell if one of your ancestors was removed? Is that a hook builtin elements have today? -- https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: Making ARIA and native HTML play better together

2015-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com wrote: Currently ARIA does not do this stuff AFAIK. Correct. ARIA only exposes strings to AT. We could maybe make it do more, once we understand what more means, which is basically figuring out HTML as Custom Elements...

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Alice Boxhall aboxh...@google.com wrote: I definitely acknowledge is= may not be the ideal solution to the latter problem - it definitely has some holes in it, especially when you start adding author shadow roots to things - but I think it does have potential.

Re: Custom Elements: insert/remove callbacks

2015-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote: That actually seems pretty similar to what we have, ours is in the form of: Node#insertedInto(Node insertionPoint) Node#removedFrom(Node insertionPoint) where insertionPoint is the ancestor in the tree where a

Re: Custom Elements: insert/remove callbacks

2015-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: In Gecko, yes. The set of hooks Gecko builtin elements have today is, effectively: 1) This element used to not have a parent and now does. 2) This element has an ancestor that used to not have a parent and now

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Hayato Ito hay...@chromium.org wrote: I'm saying: - Composed tree is related with CSS. - Node distribution should be considered as a part of style concept. Right, I think Ryosuke and I simply disagree with that assessment. CSS operates on the composed tree (and

Shadow DOM: state of the distribution API

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
It seems we have three contenders for the distribution API. 1) Synchronous, no flattening of content. A host element's shadow tree has a set of slots each exposed as a single content element to the outside. Host elements nested inside that shadow tree can only reuse slots from the outermost host

Custom Elements: insert/remove callbacks

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Open issues are kept track of here: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Custom_Elements This has come up before, but it came up again at the Extensible Web Summit so raising hopefully for the last time. The DOM has insert/remove primitives for nodes. Custom Elements uses insertion into a document

Custom Elements: is=

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Open issues are kept track of here: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Custom_Elements I think we reached rough consensus at the Extensible Web Summit that is= does not do much, even for accessibility. Accessibility is something we need to tackle low-level by figuring out how builtin elements work:

Custom Elements: Upgrade et al

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Open issues are kept track of here: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Custom_Elements I think the most pragmatic way forward here is accepting that constructing and upgrading need not be tied. Synchronous constructors map most closely to what browsers do today for builtin elements and open up the

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Miguel Garcia migu...@chromium.org wrote: Is there a timeline for the permission API in Mozilla? It shouldn't be much work to add this. The main problem I see is the list of open issues with the specification. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Miguel Garcia migu...@chromium.org wrote: Notifications has it (as a property instead of a method which is a pain). Notifications is a special snowflake though since it has a requestPermission() method too which no other API that requires permission (e.g.

Re: Shadow DOM: state of the distribution API

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Has at-end-of-microtask been debated rather than 1/2? Synchronous always has the downside that the developer has to deal with reentrancy. 1/2 are triggered by the component author. Synchronous just means that they run within

Re: Custom Elements: insert/remove callbacks

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: This is https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24866. The way I remember it, the argument went like this: the most common use case for this callback is to react to element becoming part of the main document

Re: :host pseudo-class

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: And again, from the perspective of the shadow tree, the host element is not part of its normal DOM. The shadow tree is its normal DOM

Re: Custom Elements: is=

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Léonie Watson lwat...@paciellogroup.com wrote: My understanding is that sub-classing would give us the accessibility inheritance we were hoping is= would provide. Apologies if I've missed it somewhere obvious, but is there any information/detail about the

Re: Custom Elements: Upgrade et al

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: Can you explain how you envision cloning to work a bit more? Somehow there will be instances of these elements which are not created by their

Re: Custom Elements: Upgrade et al

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Are you suggesting that cloning my-button will create a new instance of my-button by invoking its constructor? No, I'm saying there would be another primitive operation, similar to the extended structured cloning proposed

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

2015-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: I think Mozilla would be fine with taking the permission API as a dependency and implement that at the same time. Implementing the permission API should be fairly trivial for us. But we should verify this with the people

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

2015-05-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Mike West mk...@google.com wrote: I agree with Jonas. Extending the permission API to give developers a single place to check with a single consistent style seems like the right way to go. Yet others at Google are pushing the expose them twice strategy...

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-05-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Where? I have not yet to see a use case for which selective redistribution of nodes (i.e. redistributing only a non-empty strict subset of nodes from an insertion point) are required. Isn't that what e.g. select does? That

Re: :host pseudo-class

2015-05-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: It's certainly no weirder, imo, than having a pseudo-element that doesn't actually live in any element's pseudo-tree, but instead just lives in the normal DOM, but can only be selected by using a pseudo-element selector

Re: oldNode.replaceWith(...collection) edge case

2015-05-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote: This algorithm shouldn’t slow normal operations down, and I wonder if the spec could use an algorithm like this and not using document fragment. I looked at this again and we do want to use a DocumentFragment. Otherwise

Re: [components] Isolated Imports and Foreign Custom Elements

2015-05-04 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: It’s already possible to run a constructor from another global object in the non-cross-origin case. Okay, that makes more sense. I first read it as a suggestion we'd construct a node using a same-global constructor and

Re: :host pseudo-class

2015-05-04 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: But maybe you're right and the whole pseudo-class/pseudo-element distinction is rather meaningless. But at least pseudo-class til date made

Re: :host pseudo-class

2015-05-04 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: My understanding is that the question here isn't what is being matched, but rather what syntax to use for the selector. I.e. in both cases the thing that the selector is matching is the DocumentFragment which is the root of

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-05-04 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote: We can solve this problem by running the distribution code in a separate scripting context with a restricted (distribution specific) API as is being discussed for other extension points in the platform. That seems like

Re: [components] Isolated Imports and Foreign Custom Elements

2015-05-01 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: I wrote up a proposal (with input and advice from Ryosuke Niwa) on a possible way to extend Web Components to support fully isolated components: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Isolated-Imports-Proposal I

Re: Inheritance Model for Shadow DOM Revisited

2015-05-01 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On May 1, 2015, at 1:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: This is where you directly access superclass' ShadowRoot I assume and modify things? In the named slot approach, these overridable parts will be exposed

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: I’m writing any kind of component that creates a shadow DOM, I’d just keep references to all my insertion points instead of querying them each time I need to distribute nodes. I guess that is true if you know you're not

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: Can someone point me to the part of the spec that is problematic? That is, where is the line that says UAs may run this algorithm at any time? I am not sure what to Ctrl+F for. At the end of section 3.4 it states If any

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Hayato Ito hay...@chromium.org wrote: That's the exactly intended behavior in the current spec. The timing of distribution is not observable. Right, but you can synchronously observe whether something is distributed. The combination of those two things coupled

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Hayato Ito hay...@chromium.org wrote: I think there are a lot of user operations where distribution must be updated before returning the meaningful result synchronously. Unless distribution result is correctly updated, users would take the dirty result. For

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: One thing that worries me about the `distribute` callback approach (a.k.a. Anne's approach) is that it bakes distribution algorithm into the platform without us having thoroughly studied how subclassing will be done upfront.

Re: Inheritance Model for Shadow DOM Revisited

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: The problem with shadow as function is that the superclass implicitly selects nodes based on a CSS selector so unless the nodes a subclass wants to insert matches exactly what the author of superclass considered, the

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl var x = new Event(eventType) someNodeThatIsDistributed.addEventListener(eventType, e = console.log(e.path)) someNodeThatIsDistributed.dispatchEvent(ev); Can you explain

Re: :host pseudo-class

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: Pseudo-elements are things that aren't DOM elements

Re: :host pseudo-class

2015-04-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote: That's still true if you use ::host, what is the thing on the left hand side the ::host lives on? I'm not aware of any pseudo element that's not connected to another element such that you couldn't write {thing}::pseudo.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >