Thanks Alex!
I have made some updates to the spec text in response to your feedback, I
have also added other content.
http://stevefaulkner.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#semantics
please review, thanks!
--
Regards
SteveF
HTML 5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/
On 9
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27597
Hayato Ito hay...@chromium.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hi Art, I don't have any objection to publishing as is.
Would like to note that I have pretty much completed the first draft of the
custom element semantics stuff now
http://stevefaulkner.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#semantics
and have filed a pull request
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27611
Bug ID: 27611
Summary: [Custom]: SVG diagram accessibility
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity:
On 12/15/14 6:00 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Art, I don't have any objection to publishing as is.
Would like to note that I have pretty much completed the first draft
of the custom element semantics stuff now
http://stevefaulkner.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#semantics
and have filed
I was a little surprised to read Mozilla don't plan on shipping HTML
imports and will re-evaluate after modules are supported:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/mozilla-and-web-components/
Why would modules affect the decision to ship HTML imports? Imports get you:
- the ability to import style
On 12/15/14, 1:10 PM, Ashley Gullen wrote:
Why would modules affect the decision to ship HTML imports?
Because the interaction of the various import systems with each other
needs to be specified, for one thing.
But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've gotten
feedback
On 12/15/14 2:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/15/14, 1:10 PM, Ashley Gullen wrote:
Why would modules affect the decision to ship HTML imports?
Because the interaction of the various import systems with each other
needs to be specified, for one thing.
But more to the point, we're not
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
Does [Bugzilla] capture all of Mozilla's Imports concerns (or at least the
higher priority issues)? If not, who should I contact to request capturing
your concerns?
The high-order bit is that Mozilla is not interested
On 15 December 2014 at 19:09, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've gotten
feedback from a number of people that imports are not solving the problems
they actually need solved. We'd prefer to not ship imports and then need
to
Very generally: this is actually why I said way back that a lot of things
seem like prollyfills (we hope that's the future) rather than polyfills
(it's a done deal) and advocated we make sure it's a future-safe, forward
compatible approach.
On Dec 15, 2014 4:06 PM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com
Ashley Gullen wrote:
On 15 December 2014 at 19:09, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
But more to the point, we're not shipping imports because we've
gotten feedback from a number of people that imports are not
solving the problems they actually need
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Gary Kacmarcik (Кошмарчик)
gary...@chromium.org wrote:
[...]
Thus, I wonder if a separate Input Event spec (that both D3E and Editing
would refer to) would make more sense.
I think so. I have started that spec at
On 12/15/14, 3:09 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Does [Bugzilla] capture all of Mozilla's Imports concerns (or at least
the higher priority issues)?
Not yet. We've just gotten things sorted out on our end.
If not, who should I contact to request
capturing your concerns?
I think Anne's email
14 matches
Mail list logo
