> On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> Karl Dubost said:
The intersection seems to be:
['a', 'style', 'script', 'track', 'title', 'canvas', 'source', 'vide
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Karl Dubost said:
>>> The intersection seems to be:
>>> ['a', 'style', 'script', 'track', 'title', 'canvas', 'source', 'video',
>>> 'iframe', 'audio', 'font']
>>
>> Whoops, sorry, forgot
> On Mar 16, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> [Sorry for the reply-chain breaking; Gmail is being super weird about
> your message in particular, and won't let me reply directly to it.
> Some bug.]
>
> Karl Dubost said:
>> The intersection seems to be:
>> ['a', 'style', 'script', 'tr
On 2015/03/14 9:41, Karl Dubost wrote:
Tab,
The only conflicts in the namespaces are
(deprecated in SVG2),
[Sorry for the reply-chain breaking; Gmail is being super weird about
your message in particular, and won't let me reply directly to it.
Some bug.]
Karl Dubost said:
> The intersection seems to be:
> ['a', 'style', 'script', 'track', 'title', 'canvas', 'source', 'video',
> 'iframe', 'audio', 'fon
> Could you post the specific regression you ran into?
Specifically this was around platform development. Let's say I have my
developers (those that use my platform) all define their templates in
tags. This is used for all components, including components
that are partials or are "composable"...
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
> For my part, I disagree slightly with this statement. If you just drop a
> tag in a , you're going to get an HTMLUnknownElement. This is
> by design and to spec, of course. But it unfortunately means you can't
> clone() the element over to
Tab,
> The only conflicts in the namespaces are
> (deprecated in SVG2),
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Unless the SVG WG is willing to drop support for
>> . But that seems like it'd break a lot
>> of content.
>
> Like, on the same line? Because I recall that sort of thin
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Unless the SVG WG is willing to drop support for
> . But that seems like it'd break a lot
> of content.
Like, on the same line? Because I recall that sort of thing showing up
in old HTML tutorials, with the CDATA parts on thei
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
What are your thoughts on this idea?
>>>
>>> I think it woul
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts on this idea?
>>
>> I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
>> special-cased SV
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
> I agree completely, Tab, but it's actually too late to stop forcing authors
> to think about namespaces, the fact I currently have to think about it is
> the source of this suggestion.
You have to think about it today *because we've failed t
I agree completely, Tab, but it's actually too late to stop forcing authors
to think about namespaces, the fact I currently have to think about it is
the source of this suggestion.
The merging of namespaces is the ideal solution, no doubt, but it's
probably not a realistic solution in the short or
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
>> What are your thoughts on this idea?
>
> I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
> special-cased SVG elements, similar to how e.g. table elements are
> special-ca
> So much of the rest of how SVG/MathML are handled in HTML is seamless by
design. For my part, I disagree slightly with this statement. If you just
drop a tag in a , you're going to get an HTMLUnknownElement.
This is by design and to spec, of course. But it unfortunately means you
can't clone() t
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
> Is your thinking that adding special-casing for SVG-"looking" (as in, tag
> names appearing in the list of SVG tags but not in the list of HTML tags)
> inside has fewer compat risks than a wholesale change of the HTML
> parser to recognize SVG-
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
> > For clarity, is this significantly different from the below (which works
> > today)?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly there's an extra step here, in that access
WG
Subject: Re: template namespace attribute proposal
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Benjamin Lesh
mailto:bl...@netflix.com>> wrote:
I'd like to propose that the tag have a namespace="" attribute that
allows the user to specify namespaces such as "http://www.w3.or
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
> For clarity, is this significantly different from the below (which works
> today)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clearly there's an extra step here, in that accessing the SVG elements
> requires hopping into firstElementChild, but adding new name
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the tag have a namespace="" attribute
> that allows the user to specify namespaces such as "
> http://www.w3.org/2000/svg";, so that the document fragment that comes
> from `.content` is created properly.
>
> e.g.:
FWIW: Currently, template tags nested in svg are SVGElement, and not
HTMLTemplate Element. You also need to hide the SVG container or it will be
rendered.
On Mar 12, 2015 8:18 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > By special casing, do you mean
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> By special casing, do you mean to recognize SVG element names?
Yeah, not really sure there's another way of doing it. (You can of
course put things within , but then you could also put in
...)
> I'd prefer allowing template elements inside
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2015 11:07 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts on this idea?
>>
>> I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
>> special-cased SVG element
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 11:07 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
>>
>>> What are your thoughts on this idea?
>>>
>>
>> I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
>> special-cased SVG el
On 12/03/2015 11:07 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
What are your thoughts on this idea?
I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
special-cased SVG elements, similar to how e.g. table elements are
special-cased today. A lot of
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh wrote:
> What are your thoughts on this idea?
I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
special-cased SVG elements, similar to how e.g. table elements are
special-cased today. A lot of -parsing logic is set up so
that things work with
28 matches
Mail list logo
