On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/13/14 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements
Built-in elements need Type 4.
Well, Chrome does not have Type 4, yet is implementing parts of the
their elements using shadow
On 3/17/14 12:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Well, Chrome does not have Type 4, yet is implementing parts of the
their elements using shadow DOM constructs.
What makes you say Chrome doesn't have Type 4?
They do in fact have it for the case in question, as far as I can tell
(inaccessible
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/13/14 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements
Built-in elements need Type 4.
Well, Chrome does not
* Alex Russell wrote:
So you've written off the massive coordination costs of adding a uniform to
all code across all of Google and, on that basis, have suggested there
isn't really a problem? ISTM that it would be a multi-month (year?) project
to go patch every project in google3 and then wait
On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/14/14 10:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
We most vigorously object to making the CSS style resolver depend on JS
DOM object properties.
Ryosuke, I think you misunderstood the proposal. I'm pretty sure we all
object to
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
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:
A closure is an iron-clad isolation mechanism for object ownership with
regards to the closing-over function object. There's absolutely no
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:
A closure is an iron-clad isolation mechanism for object ownership with
regards
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@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:
A
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
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
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
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
[...]
We all agree it's not a security boundary and you can go through great
lengths to get into the ShadowRoot if you really wanted, all we've
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
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,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Freedman dfre...@google.com wrote:
The other hand of this argument is that components that wish to lock
themselves down could write:
this.shadowRoot = undefined;
Of course, this does would not change the outcome of the Shadow Selector
spec, which is
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 caja in the
interim. If toolkits need it, I'd like to understand those
On 2/13/14 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements
Built-in elements need Type 4.
-Boris
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 caja
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
* Anne van Kesteren 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 caja in the
interim. If toolkits need it, I'd like
* Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Type 2 is not meant to be a security mechanism. It is meant to be an
encapsulation mechanism. Let me give a comparison. Many JavaScript
programmers choose to use closures as a way to store private data for
objects. That is an encapsulation mechanism. It is not, in
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
Tab,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:09:33 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com
Until we can agree on this, Type 2 feels like an attractive nuisance
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:09:33 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell
On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
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
On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
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:
It is meant to be an encapsulation mechanism. Let me give a comparison. Many
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
Durrr. Forgot a NOT.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote:
I am NOT exactly sure what problem this thread hopes to raise and whether
there is a need for anything other than what is already planned.
On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
Dimitri, Maciej, Ryosuke - is there a mutually agreeable solution here?
I am exactly sure what problem this thread hopes to raise and whether there
is a need for anything other than what is already planned.
In
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
wrote:
Dimitri, Maciej, Ryosuke - is there a mutually agreeable solution here?
I am exactly sure what problem this thread hopes to raise and
On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
Durrr. Forgot a NOT.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
I am NOT exactly sure what problem this thread hopes to raise and whether
there is a need for anything other than
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 wrote:
Dimitri, Maciej, Ryosuke - is there a mutually agreeable solution
On 2/6/14 9:06 PM, ext Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Could chairs of the working group please clarify whether we have had a reach of
consensus on the default encapsulation level in shadow DOM?
As described in [WorkMode], WebApps' asynchronous participation and edit
first work modes means group members
Hi,
Could chairs of the working group please clarify whether we have had a reach of
consensus on the default encapsulation level in shadow DOM?
More concretely, have we _decided_ that we only want Type 1 encapsulation for
the level 1 specifications of Web components instead of Type 2 or Type 1
33 matches
Mail list logo
