it to
shadowRootHost.addPart('article-time', 'article header time,article footer
time');
and ::part(article-time) would target both
I like that, because it hides the internals and makes changes easier
B.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com mailto:bronislav.klu
Hi,
since new paradigm conserning Custom Pseudo Elements have been introduced
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0985.html
(part 5)
I'd like to suggest few additions/changes:
1/ ability to style nested shadow dom elements
2/ change of part attribute from DOMString to
On 2.7.2013 17:28, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
Hi,
since new paradigm conserning Custom Pseudo Elements have been introduced
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0985.html
(part 5)
I'd
On 2.7.2013 18:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
On 2.7.2013 17:28, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
2/ change of part attribute from
On 2.7.2013 18:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
On 2.7.2013 17:28, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
2/ change of part attribute from
On 2.7.2013 18:21, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 2.7.2013 18:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
On 2.7.2013 17:28, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
there are still too many strange things going on :]
see below
On 2.7.2013 22:19, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
On 2.7.2013 18:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu
Hi,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-components-intro-20130606/#lifecycle-callbacks
shows defining element methods, next to the life cycle it also shows
definition of methods ticks and chime,
I wonder how this construct
({
});
is compatible with ES5 object properties descriptors, in ES5 it is
e,
{
property: {
get: function() { return 5; },
set: function(value) {}
}
});
prototype;
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM,
yes, it actually is document related to current document... does not
seem confusing to me at all,
but I can go with fragment or stub as well :]
B.
On 8.3.2013 22:25, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and
hi
let's apply KISS here
how about just
rel=document
or
rel=htmldocument
Brona
On 8.3.2013 22:05, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is
t modify?
B.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM,
Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
wrote:
On 7.3.2013 17:51, Scott González wrote:
On 7.3.2013 19:54, Scott González wrote:
Who is killing anything?
Hi, given
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0676.html
I've misunderstood your point as advocating against Shadow altogether.
My concerns are twosome:
1st one is ideological: you do not touch
On 6.3.2013 18:50, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Blake Kaplan mrb...@gmail.com
mailto:mrb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@google.com
mailto:a...@google.com wrote:
Also, if shadows are public by default the API to
On 6.3.2013 21:00, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/6/13 1:31 PM, Scott González wrote:
but we feel the pros of exposing internals outweigh the cons.
When you say exposing internals here, which one of the following do
you mean:
1) Exposing internals always.
2) Exposing internals by default,
On 22.2.2013 3:33, Blake Kaplan wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm coming into this conversation late, but wanted to add my thoughts.
As has been pointed out in this thread, the web has traditionally been
very open and malleable. JavaScript has very few readonly properties,
doesn't generally throw
On 25.2.2013 18:33, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
I'd like to second that, shadow DOM is explicitly designed not to be
accessible from outside, to stay consistent
On 25.2.2013 18:38, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/25/13 12:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
We've gone back and forth. It seems that allowing monkeypatching by
default is the better choice, as most uses aren't security conscious
On 25.2.2013 19:15, Scott Miles wrote:
I agree with Tab 100% on this.
You cannot accidentally stumble into ShadowDOM. You have to actively
take that step.
Sure, someone can actively take step to access my shadow DOM, thou I
explicitly made it shadow and in next version of the control things
On 6.1.2013 0:51, Jonas Sicking wrote:
3. What should the UI in the browser look like in order to communicate
to the user that this is different from the input type=file
file-picker which only allows reading.
Well generally OS do have dialogs for Open and Save As, users use those
allhe time
On 6.1.2013 8:22, Florian Bösch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
This, I agree is a problem.
The semantic used by countless applications and which is an extremely
well established UX pattern is:
- First Save - Open
to do it for CSS, should be able to do it for CAS
Brona.
--
s pozdravem
Bronislav Klučka
http://www.bauglir.com http://www.bauglir.com
http://www.bauglir.com
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
* webové aplikace
* software na zakázku
ORS headers as a string (maybe with the restriction that
those headers must be first executable/runnable code in JS file - so
there may be comments and whitespaces before)
B.
--
s pozdravem
Bronislav Klučka
http://www.bauglir.com
bronislav.
On 18.7.2012 1:05, Ian Hickson wrote:
And if you want it to be defined in JS file itself, I'll suggest use
strict approach:
file ---
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *;
(function(){
use strict;
var x = 5;
})();
On 11.5.2012 11:40, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:43:24 +0200, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
So the ability to somehow work with FormData as an object (al least
get object out of it, or create it based on object) and the ability
to get FormData from
Hi,
currently File object cannot be constructed, only Blob can.
I'm currently implementing XHR blob upload, that blob can either be File
(selected by user) or programatically created Blob.
On server side :
1/ In case of File, I get file name as part of the file metadata (name,
size, type, etc)
On 11.5.2012 18:59, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo wrote:
Almost a year ago there was a thread about this issue (ability to set
the filename for a Blob) :
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1342.html
2012/5/11 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
On 2.5.2012 15:57, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/2/12 2:23 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
For the former, I'd suggest onbeforecontextmenu, with some way to
disable specific options
I would think that disabling cut/copy/paste would apply to main menus
too, not just context menus. Most people I know
On 2.5.2012 18:15, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
wrote:
Bear with me...
Delphi (Object Pascal) Visual Component Library has concept of
Actions
On 2.5.2012 19:07, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
wrote:
On 2.5.2012 18:15, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
On 26.4.2012 13:55, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:07:57 +0200, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
FormData can be useful not only to be sent via XHR, but essentially
to hold form values easily, e.g. you can have settings form (that you
do not need to send
On 26.4.2012 16:15, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:29:44 +0200, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
On 26.4.2012 13:55, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Why would you not simply use a JavaScript object for this?
Of course you want to use JS object for this in case
On 18.4.2012 6:50, David Sickmiller wrote:
Hi,
I must admit I am ignorant of the W3C process for drafting the
XMLHttpRequest, but I see that the webpage says to send feedback to
this address, so I am writing this email to submit my feedback.
The new FormData(form) constructor is an
On 30.3.2012 15:21, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/3/29 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
If I understand you, you find it problematic that by using weak
ref, URL would for some time reference actual Blob and other time
it would
On 29.3.2012 9:29, Darin Fisher wrote:
I've never been terribly happy with createObjectURL and the
requirement for
folks to remember to call revokeObjectURL. I really like that we're
talking
about ways to minimize this pain :-)
I noticed the WeakRefs proposal:
On 30.3.2012 0:19, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org
mailto:da...@chromium.org wrote:
I've never been terribly happy with createObjectURL and the
requirement for
folks to remember to call revokeObjectURL. I really like that
On 30.3.2012 5:40, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/3/29 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
Sure, weak referencing is probably not well explored approach, but
the underlying idea applied to blob is interesting: URL creates no
reference
On 30.3.2012 5:54, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/3/29 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
The point was not to talk about weak refs, but about not creating
a GC reference from URL to Blob
If the lifetime of the URL is tied to the lifetime
On 27.3.2012 11:43, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
mailto:i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Anything's possible, but I think the pain here would far
outweigh the
Hello,
Why there are 2 similar functionalities for selector matching?
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/#matches
boolean matches(DOMString selectors, optional (Element or sequenceNode)?
refNodes);
http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api2/#matchtesting
boolean matchesSelector(in
On 1.3.2012 4:38, Feras Moussa wrote:
We think the new property bag (objectURLOptions) semantics in the latest
editors draft are very reasonable. We have an implementation of this and
from our experience have found it very widely used internally with app
developers - many leverage it as a way
On 24.2.2012 20:12, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Bronislav,
I could also go with reverse approach, with createObjectURL being
oneTimeOnly by default
createObjectURL(Blob aBlob, boolean? isPermanent)
instead of current
createObjectURL(Blob aBlob, boolean? isOneTime)
the fact, that user would have
On 14.2.2012 5:56, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob is a reality? Mainly,
if we modify things for the *most common* use case, that could be useful
On 14.2.2012 14:39, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 2/14/2012 5:35 AM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 14.2.2012 5:56, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob
On 14.2.2012 15:20, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/2/14 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
The point of reusable Blob URL is the compatibility with regular
URL, not having reusable URL would create unpleasant dichotomy in
data
On 14.2.2012 5:56, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob is a reality? Mainly,
if we modify things for the *most common* use case, that could be useful
Hi,
regarding current discussion about Blobs, URL, etc. I'd like to have
following proposition:
every element would have following additional methods/fields:
Blob function saveToBlob();
that would return a blob containing element data (e.g. for img element
that would be image data, for p
Does anybody have any link / thread name to that discussion? I cannot
find it (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/)
and I really wonder about the reasons for dismissal (it is technically
not change but addition).
Brona
On 14.2.2012 21:58, Charles Pritchard wrote:
This was
On 8.2.2012 1:06, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
On 7/2/12 05:31 , Robin Berjon wrote:
The first problem is that of the security model. A lot of smart
people have tried to come up with a lot of different solutions here,
often involving signatures, policies, intricate user interfaces, etc.
I
On 8.2.2012 14:25, Scott Wilson wrote:
Hi
just let me quote from this thread
-
Tim Berners-Lee:
There of course places where XHR is used and there is no
cross-sitescripting security needed
1) in a browser extension
2) in node.js
On 4.2.2012 5:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/2/3 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
How would you create copies programmaticaly? How would you
reassign src attribute of one image to another? The idea, that
sometimes the attribute
On 3.2.2012 15:13, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:40:12 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob is a reality? Mainly,
if we modify things for the *most common* use case, that could
On 2.2.2012 23:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:27:08 +0100, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
would it be possible to have Image.toBlob() function? We are
introducing Canvas.toBlob(), image (and maybe video, audio) would be
nice addition
On 2.2.2012 21:25, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Well, I'm a fan of img.src = blob being made a reality, *and* of the
URL API being solidified. I'm not 100% sure how we can scope create*
to an Element in the DOM. While open to a suggestion that clarifies
your thoughts on this, I'm worried that
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm not sure what a concrete proposal would look like. Maybe
Element.URL.createObjectURL or just Element.createObjectURL?
Wouldn't returning
On 3.2.2012 7:34, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org
wrote:
I'm not sure what a concrete proposal would look like. Maybe
Element.URL.createObjectURL or just
On 3.2.2012 7:51, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 2/2/12 10:40 PM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 3.2.2012 7:34, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org
wrote:
I'm
On 3.2.2012 8:24, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 2/2/12 11:08 PM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 3.2.2012 7:51, Charles Pritchard wrote:
I see no reason why an author should expect to stash 100MB of
objects into createObjectURL, nor any reason why a UA could not
manage 100MB for the application
Hello,
based on this bug
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=93609
referencing
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/#dom-websocket-close
Looking in WebSocket protocol close codes definitions
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-7.4.1
I wonder about codes
1003 indicates that
On 1.2.2012 5:43, Takashi Toyoshima wrote:
Hi Bronislav,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
Hello,
based on this bug
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=93609
referencing
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/#dom-websocket
On 30.1.2012 15:18, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/1/30 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
it would seem that you do not understand the point here... if we
allow img.src = blob approach we would HAVE TO have memory
management on language
On 30.1.2012 16:14, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2012/1/30 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
And how? Using src attribute? that would have to be changed to
accept both string and Blob object? What it would return on get
operation? Libraries
On 30.1.2012 16:56, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/30/12 10:40 AM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
img1 = document.getElementById(my-image);
img1.src = URL.createObjectUrl(myBlob);
img2.src = img1.src;
should work like a charm and the URL and blob will be released as soon
as all references will be 0
On 30.1.2012 17:29, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/30/12 11:15 AM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
In this case you got me... what sense does it make? If there is no
reference to original blob or any other object using that URL, why is it
kept?
Because given a string there is no way to tell whether
Original Message
Subject:Re: [FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:51:55 +0100
From: Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
To: Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
On 30.1.2012 17:29, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/30/12 11
On 30.1.2012 17:51, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
The same blob should have different URLs in different documents, no?
All documents originated from the same application/session/same-origin?
No. That's the point. Unless you want the lifetime of the Blob to
immediately become while you have any
On 28.1.2012 7:10, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
mailto:i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
[...] the first dereference of the URL revokes it.
This means that you can do something like:
On 28.1.2012 10:19, Kyle Huey wrote:
2012/1/28 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
Hello,
would it be possible to have Image.toBlob() function? We are
introducing Canvas.toBlob(), image (and maybe video, audio) would
be nice
It's reference issue
img.src = URL.createObjectUrl(blob)
means, that you cannot GC that blob, because URL is just text
representation of reference.
img.src = URL.createObjectUrl(blob, true)
means, that you can GC that blob, because once URL is dereferenced, it
will not be dereferenced again
(by the reading of some) to demoting the
status of DOM2 to a work in progress.
2012/1/24 Bronislav Klučka bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
mailto:bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com
Hello,
I do understand the objection, but how relevant should it be here?
If some regulation/law dictates that work must
?
Brona
On 25.1.2012 10:10, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
Hello,
since when is obsolete the same as work in progress?
How does HTML4 (can be considered obsolete) the same as HTML5(in
progress)? It only means that new features are added to HTML5 not to
HTML 4 and any error in HTML 4 is ignored
Hello,
I do understand the objection, but how relevant should it be here? If
some regulation/law dictates that work must follow e.g. DOM 2, than it
does not matter that it's obsolete... The law takes precedence here
regardless of status of the document. Technically in such case one don't
need
Hi
http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/#widl-FileEntry-file
says that successCallback is A callback that is called with the
newFileWriter. there should be A callback that is called with the File
BTW was trying to file that bug myself, but I could not find suitable
component in WebAppsWG
to move these specs to Bugzilla but
I also don't want to create any make work for the Editors. (Arun,
Jonas, EricU - if you want Bugzilla components for these specs, please
let me know and I'll ask MikeSmith to create them.)
-AB
On 12/21/11 3:21 AM, ext Bronislav Klučka wrote:
Hi
http
Hello,
http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/#the-flags-interface
If you look at the description of exclusive flag (4.2.1), the
description states no exception, but the example (4.2.2) uses
exception to determine whether file already existed.
So the question is, what is wrong: the description
75 matches
Mail list logo
