Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
days - during which it was not visible 99.999% of the time. Should processing stop - or just painting? Painting wont happen because the OS says it wont right? On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Brian Kardell bkard

Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
it is occluded by another page could be confusing. -Rob -Original Message- From: Brian Kardell [mailto:bkard...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:58 PM To: Maciej Stachowiak Cc: Ennals, Robert; Jonas Sicking; rob...@ocallahan.org; public- weba...@w3.org Subject: Re: solving the CPU

Re: childElements, childElementCount, and children (was: [ElementTraversal]: Feature string for DOMImplementation.hasFeature(feature, version)?)

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
@deprecated ? :) On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: I agree. The reason I phrased it as I did was to contrast with my previous remarks. The children attribute should be part of

Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
-effects. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose I should not have used that phrasing... It wasn't really accurate and it obscures my point...  My point was that I actually wanted it to run in the background... So - does time stop, or just rendering?  I

Re: childElements, childElementCount, and children (was: [ElementTraversal]: Feature string for DOMImplementation.hasFeature(feature, version)?)

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
In this particular case, I think anything that's implemented in all of the major browser engines should be an official standard, not just de facto. Why only in this particular case? :) As a rule that seems like sound guidance. If it's implemented everywhere, shouldn't you have to make a

Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
So... in describing this feature: Is it really the visibility of the page that is being queried - or the some kind of state of a window? Maybe it's a silly bit of semantics, but it seems clearer to me that most of the things discussed here are about a whole window/tab being minimized (either to

Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages

2009-10-21 Thread Brian Kardell
O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: For example, I recently the Image Evolution demo from http://www.canvasdemos.com/2009/07/15/image-evolution/ as a kind of a performance test and let it run for three days - during which

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

2011-10-03 Thread Brian Kardell
Is x-mywidget necessarily more performant? Why? On Oct 3, 2011 5:33 AM, Roland Steiner rolandstei...@google.com wrote: If I may briefly summarize the pros and cons of every approach discussed: X-MYWIDGET Pros: - element name is inherently immutable - can provide arbitrary API, can (but

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Brian Kardell
This is _very_ hard to reasonably unless the browser can trust those functions to not do anything weird.  Which of course it can't.  So your options are either much slower selector matching or not having this. Your pick. This too has come up in some discussions on CSS (CSSOM I think) that I

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Brian Kardell
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/18/11 5:01 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: This too has come up in some discussions on CSS (CSSOM I think) that I have had.  In the right context - I don't think it would actually be that hard.  It would require a way

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Brian Kardell
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/18/11 5:23 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: This is not that easy.  Especially because you can reach all DOM objects from elements, so you have to lock down the entire API somehow. Right, you would need essentially, to pass

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-18 Thread Brian Kardell
Some pseudos can contain selector groups, so it would be more than just split on comma. On Oct 18, 2011 7:40 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:42, Alex Russell

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-10-26 Thread Brian Kardell
Yeah, I have to agree with the list here. If you allow one its unintuitive to not allow it the same way in a group. The more exceptions and complexity you add, the harder it is for someone to learn. On Oct 25, 2011 10:16 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-11-15 Thread Brian Kardell
Right now, the spec does however handle that use case by doing this: document.querySelectorAll(:scope .foo, x); Where x is either an individual element, or an Array, NodeList or numerically indexed object containing 0 or more Elements. (It does however limit the result only to elements

Re: [Selectors API 2] Is matchesSelector stable enough to unprefix in implementations?

2011-11-22 Thread Brian Kardell
Complexity and discussions about combinators seem to have prevented it from getting into any draft despite lots of +1s. It is really different from the rest of the selectors that exist today which are optimized like crazy so it requires more in term of implementation than most to keep performance

Re: [webcomponents]: First draft of the Shadow DOM Specification

2011-12-20 Thread Brian Kardell
Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a prefix? I also think some examples actually showing some handling of events and use of css would be really helpful here... The upper boundary for css vs inheritance I think would be made especially easier to understand with a good

Re: [webcomponents]: First draft of the Shadow DOM Specification

2011-12-22 Thread Brian Kardell
:58 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a prefix? I also think some examples actually showing some handling of events and use of css would

Re: [webcomponents]: First draft of the Shadow DOM Specification

2011-12-22 Thread Brian Kardell
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is this what you had in mind? CSSOM interfaces are attached

Re: [webcomponents]: First draft of the Shadow DOM Specification

2011-12-22 Thread Brian Kardell
to have some kind of scripted example, even if it is really basic for discussion... If not.. well... my re-read seems to have gotten me a little lost. -Brian On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Brian Kardell bkard

Re: [webcomponents]: First draft of the Shadow DOM Specification

2011-12-23 Thread Brian Kardell
there is a piece missing.. On Dec 22, 2011 8:16 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Quick note : That is the single best draft prose I have ever read :) On Dec 22, 2011 6:56 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: BTW, added an example: dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file

Re: [webcomponents]: First draft of the Shadow DOM Specification

2011-12-23 Thread Brian Kardell
On Dec 23, 2011 1:00 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: In your example, you lost me on this part: // Insert Bob's shadow tree under the election story box. root.appendChild(document.createElement

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-02-08 Thread Brian Kardell
Are you essentially suggesting partials? Basically, one template can contain another only by reference? Then you have something like a corresponding tag or macro-ish thing whereby you can reference (functionally include) on themplate from another? That sidesteps the whole nested template

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-02-08 Thread Brian Kardell
Then why not something like template id=aworld/template template id=bhello partial with=a/template On Feb 8, 2012 10:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Are you essentially suggesting partials? Basically, one

Re: Disallowing mutation events in shadow DOM

2012-02-23 Thread Brian Kardell
Just to be clear on this: what is the status of mutation observers? If there any chance shadow dom beats mutation observers to standardization? I don't think so, but just checking... If that turned out to be the case it could be crippling shadow dom until such a time.. Brian On Feb 23, 2012

Re: Disallowing mutation events in shadow DOM

2012-02-23 Thread Brian Kardell
Yeah that was pretty much my feeling but always worth checking. On Feb 23, 2012 7:13 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote: On 02/24/2012 02:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote: Just to be clear on this: what is the status of mutation observers? They are in DOM 4. The API may still change

Re: [webcomponents] Progress Update

2012-03-20 Thread Brian Kardell
on: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/spec/templates/index.html as listed below, it returns error: revision not found: spec. I think it should be: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov

Re: [webcomponents] Progress Update

2012-03-20 Thread Brian Kardell
:09 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: on: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/spec/templates/index.html  as listed below, it returns error: revision not found: spec. I think it should be: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html On Mon, Mar

Re: [webcomponents] Progress Update

2012-03-20 Thread Brian Kardell
, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Whoops... that does not appear to be the same file.  Appears that the repo points to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/c2f82425ba8d/spec/templates/index.html FYI tip

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-24 Thread Brian Kardell
Yes. I think this issue is a distraction. Using the script tag for encoding opaque text contents is a hack, but it works as well as it can. AFAIC, The main drawback is that the contents cannot contain the string /script. This will be the case for any new element we came up with for this

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-24 Thread Brian Kardell
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:46, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I know of many, many templating systems and I have simply never (aside from MDV) seen it in exactly this light (that is templates actually embedded

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-24 Thread Brian Kardell
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Clint Hill clint.h...@gmail.com

Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes = Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
It does feel very sensible that regardless of templates this is a useful feature that we've long desired. On Apr 24, 2012 8:28 AM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote: No, I hadn't. Let me digest this thread. Much of what I'm implicitly asking has already been discussed. I'll repost if I

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
Earlier in this thread I mentioned I expect, however, that there might be larger ideas behind why not to do this in the sense of web components or declarative MDV-like data binding... I guess this is mostly a question for Dimitri or Dominic, but: template is used/referenced extensively in the Web

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Earlier in this thread I mentioned I expect, however, that there might be larger ideas behind why not to do this in the sense of web

Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes = Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
That would be a major leap forward in the least right? On Apr 25, 2012 3:41 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote: Ok, so from the thread that Yehuda started last year, There seem to be three issues: 1) Interop (e.g. WRT IE) 2) Defining the behavior for all elements 3) HTML vs SVG

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
And when that becomes the case, then using the source text becomes problematic not just less efficient right? On Apr 25, 2012 6:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: No. Also, as spec'd today, HTML

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
On Apr 25, 2012 7:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: script type=text/html works for string-based templating. Special handling of /script is not a big enough pain to justify adding a template element. For

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element

2012-04-25 Thread Brian Kardell
Yes!! Thanks guys...that's exactly the distictions and clarifications I was looking for...assuming these are acceptable distinctions, definitions and goals. On Apr 25, 2012 8:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com

Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal

2012-05-17 Thread Brian Kardell
So, out of curiosity - do you have a list of things? I'm wondering where some efforts fall in all of this - whether they are good or bad on this scale, etc... For example: querySelectorAll - it has a few significant differences from jQuery both in terms of what it will return (jquery uses

Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal

2012-05-17 Thread Brian Kardell
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: So, out of curiosity - do you have a list of things?  I'm wondering where some efforts fall in all of this - whether they are good or bad

Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal

2012-05-17 Thread Brian Kardell
, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: So, out of curiosity - do you have a list of things? I'm wondering where some

Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal

2012-05-18 Thread Brian Kardell
Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: So, out of curiosity

Re: [selectors-api] Consider backporting find() behavior to querySelector()

2012-06-19 Thread Brian Kardell
I am very opposed to this, they do different things. Having abilities isn't a bad thing and numerous Web sites and libraries make use of qsa, not just because find was not available but because different APIs shapes interesting new possibilities, different ways of looking at problems, etc... We

Re: [webcomponents]-ish: Visibility of work in Bugzilla

2012-08-16 Thread Brian Kardell
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: Folks, Several peeps now mentioned to me that the visibility of work in Bugzilla is not very high: a special step of watching an email is required to get all the updates in real time. I do make the regular update

Re: Proposal for Cascading Attribute Sheets - like CSS, but for attributes!

2012-08-21 Thread Brian Kardell
On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: Meh. I think this loses most of the CSS is so much more convenient benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry about whether the nodes

Re: Proposal for Cascading Attribute Sheets - like CSS, but for attributes!

2012-08-21 Thread Brian Kardell
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: Meh. I

Re: Proposal for Cascading Attribute Sheets - like CSS, but for attributes!

2012-08-21 Thread Brian Kardell
On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow also incorporate jquery style live event handlers here? See previous www-dom discussion about this: . I

Re: Proposal for Cascading Attribute Sheets - like CSS, but for attributes!

2012-08-21 Thread Brian Kardell
On Aug 21, 2012 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 21, 2012 6:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: So, in my current proposal, you can just set an onfoo attribute: ul.special li

[Web-storage] subdomains / cooperation and limits

2012-09-17 Thread Brian Kardell
I have searched the archives and been unable to resolve this to a great answer and I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct lest I have to unwind things later as someone has recently made me second guess what I thought was a logical understanding of things. Essentially,

Re: [webcomponents] More backward-compatible templates

2012-11-02 Thread Brian Kardell
The reason is because all of the things that you do in every template system (iteration, conditionals, etc) are also intended to be template. It kinda messes with the mind to get used to that idea, even for me I occasionally need reminding... http://memegenerator.net/instance/29459456 Brian

Re: Feedback and questions on shadow DOM and web components

2012-11-13 Thread Brian Kardell
Brian Kardell :: @bkardell :: hitchjs.com On Nov 13, 2012 9:34 AM, Angelina Fabbro angelinafab...@gmail.com wrote: Hello public-webapps, I'm Angelina, and I've been very interested in shadow DOM and web components for some time now. So much so that I've tried to teach people about them several

Re: [webcomponents]: What callbacks do custom elements need?

2013-03-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 3/11/13 3:44 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote: Just to be clear, these are callbacks (right?), meaning synchronous executions on one specific node. That is a far cry from the old issues with mutation events and nightmarish

Re: [webcomponents]: What callbacks do custom elements need?

2013-03-11 Thread Brian Kardell
Is it very difficult to provide here is an attribute I'm watching + a callback? Most things require us to write switches and things and receive overly broad notifications which aren't great for performance or for code legibility IMO. Just curious. -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell

Re: [webcomponents]: What callbacks do custom elements need?

2013-03-11 Thread Brian Kardell
Sorry I clicked send accidentally there... I meant to mention that I think this is sort of the intent of attributeFilter in mutation observers On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Is it very difficult to provide here is an attribute I'm watching

Re: [webcomponents]: What callbacks do custom elements need?

2013-03-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mar 11, 2013 9:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 3/11/13 8:59 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: Is it very difficult to provide here is an attribute I'm watching + a callback? It's not super-difficult but it adds more complication to already-complicated code One big question

Re: [webcomponents]: First stab at the Web Components spec

2013-03-18 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mar 18, 2013 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Karl Dubost k...@la-grange.net wrote: Le 7 mars 2013 à 18:25, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit : Here's a first rough draft of the Web Components spec:

Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

2013-03-26 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mar 25, 2013 3:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: Hello folks! It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the Web Components as the name for the link rel=component spec (cc'd some of the feedbackers). So... these malcontents are suggesting that Web Components

Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

2013-03-27 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mar 27, 2013 2:27 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote: The problem I'm trying to get at, is that while a 'custom element' has a chance of meeting your 1-6 criterion, the thing on the other end of link rel='to-be-named'... has no such qualifications. As designed, the target of this link

Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

2013-03-28 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mar 28, 2013 11:45 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote: So. : rel type: import spec name: 1) HTML Imports 2) Web Imports :DG Makes sense to me!

Re: [webcomponents]: de-duping in HTMLImports

2013-04-09 Thread Brian Kardell
) not parsed twice. But these features are not in specification, and are not trivial as design decisions. WDYT? Scott For what it is worth, I think I might have opened a bug on this already (long ago) - but it would have been mixed in with a larger 'how to load them'... -- Brian Kardell

Re: [webcomponents]: Re-imagining shadow root as Element

2013-04-10 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote: I'm already on the record with A, but I have a question about 'lossiness'. With my web developer hat on, I wonder why I can't say: div id=foo shadowroot shadow stuff /shadowroot light stuff /div and

Re: [webcomponents]: Re-imagining shadow root as Element

2013-04-10 Thread Brian Kardell
On Apr 10, 2013 1:24 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote: So, what you quoted are thoughts I already deprecated mysefl in this thread. :) If you read a bit further, see that I realized that shadow-root is really part of the 'outer html' of the node and not the inner html. Yeah sorry,

Re: [webcomponents]: Of weird script elements and Benadryl

2013-04-13 Thread Brian Kardell
On Apr 13, 2013 8:57 PM, Daniel Buchner dan...@mozilla.com wrote: @Rick - if we generated a constructor that was in scope when the script was executed, there is no need for rebinding 'this'. I'd gladly ditch the rebinding in favor of sane, default, generated constructors. I think we need

Re: [webcomponents]: Of weird script elements and Benadryl

2013-04-14 Thread Brian Kardell
Can Scott or Daniel or someone explain the challenge with creating a normal constructor that has been mentioned a few times (Scott mentioned has-a). I get the feeling that several people are playing catch up on that challenge and the implications that are causing worry. Until people have some

Re: URL comparison

2013-04-28 Thread Brian Kardell
On Apr 25, 2013 1:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: Background reading: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors/#local-pseudo and http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ :local-link() seems like a special case API

Re: URL comparison

2013-05-01 Thread Brian Kardell
+ the public-nextweb list... On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: We created a prollyfill for this about a year ago (called :-link-local instead of :local-link for forward

Re: jar protocol

2013-05-10 Thread Brian Kardell
Would it be possible (not suggesting this would be the common story) to reference a zipped asset directly via the full url, sans a link tag?

Re: jar protocol

2013-05-10 Thread Brian Kardell
Can you hash out a little bit more how this would work? I'm assuming you mean something like: img src='/bundle.zip/img/dahut.jpg' Meh, sorta - but I was missing some context on the mitigation strategies - thanks for filling me in offline. Still, same kinda idea, could you add an attribute

Re: jar protocol

2013-05-10 Thread Brian Kardell
they are smart enough to deal with that already. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: element Needs A Beauty Nap

2013-08-13 Thread Brian Kardell
to help lead the charge on asking those questions and helping to offer potentially competing answers -- there need be no rush to standardize at the high level at this point IMO. -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: [webcomponents]: The Shadow Cat in the Hat Edition

2013-09-09 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 9, 2013 9:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote: I'd greatly prefer to stick with the current plan of having to mark things to be exposed explicitly, Fwiw, we tried that and got in the weeds right

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 11, 2013 9:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: As far as I can tell Element.prototype.matches() is not deployed yet. Should we instead make selectors first-class citizens, just like regular expressions, and have this: var sel = new Selectors(i love selectors,

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 11, 2013 11:11 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote: On 11/09/13 15:50, Brian Kardell wrote: Yes, to be clear, that is what i meant. If it is in a draft and widely/compatibly implemented and deployed in released browsers not behind a flag - people are using it. If people

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 11, 2013 11:11 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote: On 11/09/13 15:50, Brian Kardell wrote: Yes, to be clear, that is what i meant. If it is in a draft and widely/compatibly implemented

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 11, 2013 12:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 9/11/13 12:26 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: If something with the same name but different signature or functionality goes out unprefixed, things will break. Why is this, exactly? Is code assuming that mozFoo, webkitFoo and foo

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-11 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 11, 2013 10:04 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote: On 11/09/2013 15:56 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I like the idea, but matches has been in release builds for a long time, right? Hitch uses it. !DOCTYPE

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-12 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 12, 2013 2:16 AM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote: FWD'ing to put my reply back on list (and to others)... On Sep 11, 2013 6:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: As far as I can tell Element.prototype.matches() is not deployed yet. Should we instead make

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-13 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 13, 2013 4:38 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Sep 11, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Francois Remy r...@adobe.com wrote: For the record, I'm equally concerned about renaming `matchesSelector` into `matches`. A lot of code now rely on a prefixed or unprefixed version of

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-14 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 14, 2013 6:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I am not really sure why you feel this way - this piece of the draft is tremendously stable, and interoperable as anything else. The decision to make

Re: should mutation observers be able to observe work done by the html parser

2013-09-16 Thread Brian Kardell
was therw ever agreement on this old topic? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0618.htmlwhether by de facto implementation or spec agreements? I am not seeing anything in the draft but maybe i am missing it...

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-16 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 13, 2013 4:38 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Sep 11, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Francois Remy r...@adobe.com wrote: For the record

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-16 Thread Brian Kardell
On Sep 16, 2013 3:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I think the responses/questions are getting confused. I'm not sure about others, but my position is actually not that complicated: This feature has

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-16 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Scott González scott.gonza...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I think Francois shared a github search with shows almost 15,500 uses expecting matchesSelector. As is generally the case, that GitHub

Re: Making selectors first-class citizens

2013-09-16 Thread Brian Kardell
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: If they didn't support down-level browsers at all, then they're already broken for a lot of users, so making them broken for a few more

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2013-11-18 Thread Brian Kardell
Mixed response here... I love the idea of making HTML imports *not* block rendering as the default behavior In terms of custom elements, this creates as a standard, the dreaded FOUC problem about which a whole different group of people will be blogging and tweeting... Right? I don't know that

Re: [HTML Imports]: what scope to run in

2013-11-19 Thread Brian Kardell
On Nov 19, 2013 2:22 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: We share the concern Jonas expressed here as I've repeatedly mentioned on another

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Imports

2013-12-05 Thread Brian Kardell
I've been putting off a response on this, but I have some things to add... The topic on this thread was originally HTML Imports - it seems like some of the concerns expressed extend beyond imports and are a little wider ranging. I am cross posting this comment to public-next...@w3.org as I think

Re: [custom elements] Improving the name of document.register()

2013-12-11 Thread Brian Kardell
is the only kind of element you could register, custom seems redundant - similarly - it isn't registerCustomProtocolHandler(). .registerElement is reasonably short and, IMO, adds the descriptiveness that Ted is looking for? -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: [custom elements] Improving the name of document.register()

2013-12-12 Thread Brian Kardell
On Dec 11, 2013 11:48 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Dec 11, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:17 AM, pira...@gmail.com pira...@gmail.com wrote: I have seen registerProtocolHandler() and it's being discused

Re: [custom elements] Improving the name of document.register()

2013-12-13 Thread Brian Kardell
, at 10:09 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 11, 2013 11:48 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Dec 11, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: ... El 11/12/2013

Re: [webcomponents] Auto-creating shadow DOM for custom elements

2013-12-14 Thread Brian Kardell
As an alternate suggestion, and one that might dodge the subclassing issues, perhaps createShadowRoot could take an optional template argument and clone it automatically. Then this: this._root = this.createShadowRoot(); this._root.appendChild(template.content.cloneNode());

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2014-01-29 Thread Brian Kardell
-element-pseudoclass -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2014-01-29 Thread Brian Kardell
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Jake Archibald jaffathec...@gmail.comwrote: :unresolved { display: none; } plus lazyload ( https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourcePriorities/Overview.html#attr-lazyload) would allow devs to create the non-blocking behaviour. But this is the

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2014-01-29 Thread Brian Kardell
in the tree at parse - I dont think that is DOMContentLoaded, but hopefully you take my point. If we could agree that that solution works, we could then have a cage match to decide on a good name :) On 29 January 2014 09:19, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:09

Re: [Bug 24823] New: [ServiceWorker]: MAY NOT is not defined in RFC 2119

2014-02-26 Thread Brian Kardell
On Feb 26, 2014 1:01 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote: The section Worker Script Caching uses the term MAY NOT, which is not defined in RFC 2119. I'm assuming this is intended to be MUST NOT or maybe SHOULD NOT. If an agent MAY $x then it also

[custom-elements] :unresolved and :psych

2014-03-25 Thread Brian Kardell
and let the author participate in that somehow, perhaps the same way (optionally return a promise from created). Either way, it seems to me that if we had that, my folks would use that over the current definition of :resolved in a lot of cases. -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: [custom-elements] :unresolved and :psych

2014-03-25 Thread Brian Kardell
(populated) element was ready. -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: [custom-elements] :unresolved and :psych

2014-03-25 Thread Brian Kardell
into the system (tighten the feedback loop, right). -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

Re: [custom-elements] :unresolved and :psych

2014-03-26 Thread Brian Kardell
element is created and it's ready for user interaction for some custom elements. Custom pseudo, for example, seems like a more appealing solution in that regard. - R. Niwa On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: I'm working with several individuals of varying

Re: Custom Elements: 'data-' attributes

2014-05-08 Thread Brian Kardell
without getting too crazy? -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

  1   2   >