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
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
@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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
: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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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!
) 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
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
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,
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
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
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
+ 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
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?
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
they are smart enough to deal with
that already.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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());
-element-pseudoclass
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
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
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
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
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
(populated) element was
ready.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
into the system (tighten the feedback
loop, right).
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
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
without getting too crazy?
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
