On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Doesn't it seem more likely that the third-party will do the
registration in whatever script you include that implements the Like
button, or whatever?
That's just a matter of convention, no? I don't think it's
I think for convenience registration probably should be carried around
with the component, because:
1. It is convenient for the author using the component.
2. If the component library reuses its own abstractions, it probably
expects them to have a specific element name. Putting registration in
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@chromium.orgwrote:
I think for convenience registration probably should be carried around
with the component, because:
1. It is convenient for the author using the component.
2. If the component library reuses its own abstractions,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
Here is a quick first cut:
How about use cases like these:
- Extension that wants to inspect input type=password and warn you
when you are entering you password in an insecure form (from abarth
earlier in the
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On the other hand, it seems likely that some of these xdash names will
come into multi-party use. For example, the following use cases
involve xdash names chosen by one party and then used by another:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Roland Steiner
rolandstei...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
Here is a quick first cut:
How about use cases like these:
- Extension that wants to inspect input type=password and warn you
when you
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Roland Steiner
rolandstei...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On the other hand, it seems likely that some of these xdash names will
come into multi-party use. For example, the following use cases
involve
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
I'm still trying to digest this, but it seem pretty clear the 'confinement'
is the clear scope thing I was asking about on es-discuss. According to
that discussion, this means needs to fit with the 'modules'
Here is a quick first cut:
How about use cases like these:
- Extension that wants to inspect input type=password and warn you
when you are entering you password in an insecure form (from abarth
earlier in the thread.)
- Password manager that wants to find anything that looks like a login
panel
On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
* Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem
on the Web
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
* Created a
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
One thing missing is some kind of declarative way to define
shadow trees, similar to XBL1's content.
I think this omission is a big plus. XBL1 content is mysterious. If a
dev tool wants to add support for building
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
One thing missing is some kind of declarative way to define
shadow trees, similar to XBL1's content.
It would be rather strange if one needs to explicitly construct
shadow tree after the element is created.
I know we
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
One thing missing is some kind of declarative way to define
shadow trees, similar to XBL1's content.
It would be rather strange if one needs
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
* Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem
on the Web
Hi Olli!
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
*
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I
have a couple questions. Please forgive me if my questions have
already been
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
Yes, shadow DOM gives the author an extra lever to control visibility
and hackability of their code. It's up to them to use this lever
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
This section http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model#Performance
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:50 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
Yes, shadow DOM gives the author an extra lever to
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote:
Independent of our different point of view on control, shadow DOM needs
debug APIs. So much the better if these are available to extensions.
Let me see if I can capture this into a feature: user scripts may have
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:23 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
Independent of our different point of view on control, shadow DOM needs
debug APIs. So much the better if these are available to
I'm still trying to digest this, but it seem pretty clear the 'confinement'
is the clear scope thing I was asking about on es-discuss. According to
that discussion, this means needs to fit with the 'modules' thing on
ecmascript. That seems to be where you are headed, but basing a new proposal
on
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on
fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've
done so far:
* Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem
on the Web (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Behavior_Attachment);
* Wrote
I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I
have a couple questions. Please forgive me if my questions have
already been answer in previous discussions.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
All,
Over the last few weeks, a few
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I
have a couple questions. Please forgive me if my questions have
already been answer in previous discussions.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Dimitri
28 matches
Mail list logo
