>From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
>
>Depending on the changes we make based on
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Shadow-DOM:-Contentious-Bits
>
>this might already be the case. Also, I believe currently the Web
>Components polyfill makes some assumptions about all of We
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Travis Leithead
wrote:
> Are we OK with a non-URL-based creation model (as used today) being fairly
> different from a URL-based creation model?
I think so.
> [A] breaking change for existing implementations.
Depending on the changes we make based on
https
> On Mar 20, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Travis Leithead
> wrote:
>
>> Ryosuke Niwa [mailto:rn...@apple.com] wrote:
>>
>>> Travis wrote:
>>> 2.&4. I keep running into trouble when thinking about a declarative model
>>> for web components because declarative models are based on persistent
>>> objects i
>Ryosuke Niwa [mailto:rn...@apple.com] wrote:
>
>> Travis wrote:
>> 2.&4. I keep running into trouble when thinking about a declarative model
>> for web components because declarative models are based on persistent
>> objects in the DOM, and those persistent objects are fully mutable. In other
>
Yes, loading components via imports today is "use at your own risk" since you
pull that content directly into your trust boundary. At least with
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Travis Leithead
wrote:
> 5. I like this. Though it's really only necessary for the cross-origin use
> case.
I think it's worth mentioning that the existing setup further
encourages the rather dangerous practice of including and trusting
cross-origin scripts. E.g
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0418.html
So one flaw with this approach is that a cross-origin custom element
would have no visible API surface. That part is very much unlike what
et al offer today. I rem
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Travis Leithead
> wrote:
>
>> From: Ryosuke Niwa [mailto:rn...@apple.com]
>> I think this idea resonates well with the cross-origin use case / API change
>> proposal we made two years ago [1]. In that proposal, we went a step
>> further and tied custom elements
y necessary for the cross-origin use case.
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0418.html
From: Ryosuke Niwa [mailto:rn...@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:26 PM
To: Travis Leithead
Cc: Dimitri Glazkov (dglaz...@google.com); WebApps WG; Anne van Kesteren
(a
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leith...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I think ‘Worker’ threw me off at first J.
>
>
>
> My original use case was to make the current model of loading components
> more “local”, as AFAIK, these components can only presently be loaded by
> code y
I think ‘Worker’ threw me off at first ☺.
My original use case was to make the current model of loading components more
“local”, as AFAIK, these components can only presently be loaded by code you
trust, e.g., via some script library somewhere imported via a
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Travis Leithead
> wrote:
>
>Has the idea of loading/parsing a Shadow DOM directly from a URL been
> discussed already? (e.g., a sort-of “micro-import” or an import that parses
> its document directly into the ShadowRoot container?) I’m curious to know if
>
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7ci1-lBTY6AJxgN99aCMwjZKCjKv1v3y_7WLtcgM00/edit?pli=1
>
> That seems really cool. I'm not sure worker is the right terminology
> since
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7ci1-lBTY6AJxgN99aCMwjZKCjKv1v3y_7WLtcgM00/edit?pli=1
That seems really cool. I'm not sure worker is the right terminology
since at the moment worker sort of implies there's no node tree
available due t
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leith...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ah, thanks Dimitri.
>
>
> After reading that, I'm also receiving it rather "coolly". It's a very
> interesting idea, but as it relates to web components, its errs strongly on
> the side of isolation to th
nchronously loading a shadow dom as work today
(without a URL) may be largely unaffected.
From: Dimitri Glazkov
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:44 AM
To: Travis Leithead
Cc: WebApps WG; Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl); Arron Eicholz; Elliott
Sprehn
Subject: Re:
... found it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7ci1-lBTY6AJxgN99aCMwjZKCjKv1v3y_7WLtcgM00/edit?pli=1
:DG<
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
wrote:
> Yep. Elliott (cc'd) had a proposal like this a while back. It was coolly
> received (can't remember the details).
>
> :DG<
>
>
Yep. Elliott (cc'd) had a proposal like this a while back. It was coolly
received (can't remember the details).
:DG<
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leith...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Dimitri et al.,
>
>
>
>Has the idea of loading/parsing a Shadow DOM directly from a
18 matches
Mail list logo
