On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway...
On 02/19/2013 10:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
mailto:jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
mailto:ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right,
Anne?
Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end of the day.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14694#c7
So
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right,
Anne?
Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
So given that consensus still putting it on ShadowRoot strikes me like
a bad idea (as I think I've said somewhere in a bug). The same goes
for
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Also, I want to know better which part of _putting it on ShadowRoot_
strikes Anne as bad. I would like striking him at all, especially with
something bad :P
Mainly, if it's bad for DocumentFragment, it's bad for
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Also, I want to know better which part of _putting it on ShadowRoot_
strikes Anne as bad. I would like striking him at all, especially with
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on
ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not
be a DocumentFragment?
No. all I'm saying that we made a conscious choice not to have
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on
ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not
be a
On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
(mailto:ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
(mailto:dglaz...@google.com) wrote:
Still
Thank you for enumerating the list, Jonas!
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I chatted with Blake about this today and had some thoughts.
There is definitely no simple answer here, feels like using either an
Element or a DocumentFragment has some crappy
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Thank you for enumerating the list, Jonas!
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I chatted with Blake about this today and had some thoughts.
There is definitely no simple answer
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Adding API to *some* DocumentFragment will likely mean that
people will need to check just what type of DocumentFragment they
have.
Although not exposed, because of template.contents we now
effectively have a special type
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, the shadow root inside a component isn't an element, so it
can't host styles, etc. This makes a few things weird, though.
For example, it means that it's non-trivial to get at the style of
text nodes
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. My point is that it won't appear in the box tree.
I think if you put shadow in a normal tree it should just be
display:none. Similar to element and friends. No reason for its
descendants to show up.
On 2/12/13 1:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Not given the flattened tree construction algorithm I last saw... Am I just
missing something?
Right, because it's not an element yet, and thus can't appear in the
tree like all the other elements do. Once it becomes an element, I
presume it would.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
Right now, the shadow root inside a component isn't an element, so it
can't host styles, etc. This makes a few things weird, though.
For example, it means that it's non-trivial to get at the style of
text nodes
There is also a discussion taking place in the jQuery bug tracker [1]
related to issues arising from shadow roots not being elements.
[1] http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/13342
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
Right now, the shadow root inside a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/11/13 7:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If it's an element and thus has an effect on styling, I presume it
would appear in the final flattened tree.
Not given the flattened tree construction algorithm I last saw... Am I
21 matches
Mail list logo
