[ Apologies for cross-posting ]
On 2/4/15 6:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
That sounds rather demeaning and insulting [1]. public-webapps, or a
mailing list of any W3C working group, isn't an appropriate forum to rant.
Given this thread resulted in some heated replies, I'd like to remind
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
... Hanging but?! Oh lordy. Oooh, let me turn this into a contemplative
sidebar opportunity.
Shadow DOM and Web Components seem to have what I call the Unicorn
Syndrome. There's a set of specs that works, proven by
On 02/05/2015 02:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
However, I would like to first understand if that is the problem that the group
wants to solve. It is unclear from this conversation.
Yes. The marketing speech for shadow DOM has changed over time from do everything possible,
make things
On Feb 5, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/05/2015 02:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
However, I would like to first understand if that is the problem that the
group
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
Following this thread because there is real need for what is being
discussed.
However, until that need is satisfied, here is what we're thinking to
achieve style encapsulation, using current-world technologies, and I'm
* Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Shadow DOM and Web Components seem to have what I call the Unicorn
Syndrome. There's a set of specs that works, proven by at least one
browser implementation and the use in the wild. It's got warts
(compromises) and some of those warts are quite ugly. Those warts weren't
... Hanging but?! Oh lordy. Oooh, let me turn this into a contemplative
sidebar opportunity.
Shadow DOM and Web Components seem to have what I call the Unicorn
Syndrome. There's a set of specs that works, proven by at least one browser
implementation and the use in the wild. It's got
On Feb 5, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
mailto:rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
mailto:dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/05/2015 02:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
However, I would like to first understand if that is the problem that the
group wants to solve. It is unclear from this conversation.
Yes. The marketing speech for shadow DOM
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/05/2015 02:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
However, I would like to first understand if that is the problem that
the group wants to solve. It
On Feb 4, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/03/2015 04:22 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
Why do we need shadow DOM (or something similar) at all if we expose it
easily to the outside world.
One could even now just require that elements in components in a web page
have class=component, and then
.component could be
On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
Why do we need shadow DOM (or something similar) at all if we expose it
easily to the outside world.
One could even now just require that elements in
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
Why do we need shadow DOM (or something similar) at all if we expose it
easily to the
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/05/2015 01:20 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
You don't need strong isolation primitives to do a lot of good.
Simple composition helpers lift an *enormous* weight off the shoulders
of web devs, and make whole classes of bugs
On 02/05/2015 01:20 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
You don't need strong isolation primitives to do a lot of good.
Simple composition helpers lift an *enormous* weight off the shoulders
of web devs, and make whole classes of bugs obsolete. Shadow DOM is
precisely that composition helper right now.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
Why do we need shadow DOM (or something similar) at all if we expose it
easily
On 02/03/2015 07:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Not trying to barge in, just sprinkling data...
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com
mailto:bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/03/2015 04:22 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the
composition problem:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/03/2015 04:22 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi mailto:
o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
Why should even !important work if the component wants to use its own
colors?
Because that's how !important usually works. If the author has
progressed to the point of doing !important, we should assume that
they know what
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the composition
problem:
https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I would like to
see
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the
composition problem:
https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/
friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
This is the
Not trying to barge in, just sprinkling data...
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the
composition problem:
https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I would like
to see solved with the primitive being discussed on this
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
So if that is a given, why can we not start there and explain how it would
work and use it to fashion increasingly high abstractions - hopefully with
the ability to do some experimentation outside of native
On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:15 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
13.01.2015, 00:57, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:13 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
09.01.2015, 16:42, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
On Jan 13, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
mailto:rn...@apple.com wrote:
To separate presentational information (CSS) from the semantics (HTML).
Defining both style isolation boundaries and the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 13, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
To separate presentational information (CSS) from the semantics (HTML).
Defining
13.01.2015, 00:57, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:13 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
09.01.2015, 16:42, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
To separate presentational information (CSS) from the semantics (HTML).
Defining both style isolation boundaries and the associated CSS rules in an
external CSS file will allow authors to change both of them without having
to
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
tl;dr: Cramming a subtree into a TreeScope container and then hanging
that off the DOM would do the job for free (because it bakes all
that functionality in).
Sure, or we could expose a property that when set isolates
09.01.2015, 16:42, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping provides.
Namely a way to isolate a subtree from selector matching (of document
stylesheets, not necessarily user
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping provides.
Namely a way to isolate a subtree from selector matching (of document
stylesheets, not
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:13 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
09.01.2015, 16:42, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping provides.
Namely a way to isolate a subtree from
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:13 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
09.01.2015, 16:42, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow
On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping provides.
Namely a
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
mailto:rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:13 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru
mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
09.01.2015, 16:42, Anne van
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's assume we did it, though. We'd have to have some mechanism for
defining an isolation boundary, and denoting whether rules were
inside or outside
± On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
± wrote:
± I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
± primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping provides.
± Namely a way to isolate a subtree from selector matching (of document
±
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
mailto:rn...@apple.com wrote:
[snip]
I agree that having both style isolation and subtree isolation is desirable
in some use cases such as Web app
On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's
Sure, here are some use cases I can think off the top of my head:
1. Styling a navigation bar which is implemented as a list of
hyperlinks
2. Styling an article in a blog
3. Styling the comment section in a blog article
4. Styling a code snippet in a blog article
None of
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com
mailto:rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com
mailto:bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, here are some
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's assume we did it, though. We'd have to have some mechanism for
On Jan 12, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
[ryosuke, your mail client keeps producing flattened replies. maybe
send as plain-text, not HTML?]
Weird. I'm not seeing that at all on my end.
The style defined for bar *in bar's setup code* (that is, in a
style
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan
[oof, somehow your latest response flattened all of the quotes]
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
? I didn't mention DOM APIs. I'm referring back to the example you're
replying to - if
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
I understand your use case but please also understand that some authors
don't want to write a few dozen lines of JavaScript to create a shadow DOM,
and hundreds of lines of code or load a framework to decoratively isolate
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's assume
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, here are some use cases I can think off the top of my head:
Styling a navigation bar which is implemented as a list of hyperlinks
Styling an article in a blog
Styling the comment section in a blog article
Styling
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, here are some use cases I can think off the top of my head:
1. Styling a navigation bar which is implemented as a list of
hyperlinks
2.
[ryosuke, your mail client keeps producing flattened replies. maybe
send as plain-text, not HTML?]
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Ryosuke Niwa
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
[ryosuke, your mail client keeps producing flattened replies. maybe
send as plain-text, not HTML?]
Weird. I'm not seeing that at all on my end.
It's
On Jan 12, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
[ryosuke, your mail client keeps producing flattened replies. maybe
send as
Intent to remove style scoped in blink-dev is here:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/R1x18ZLS5qQ
On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 1:26:52 PM Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone shed light at why Scoped Style Element was removed from Chrome
experimental
Can someone shed light at why Scoped Style Element was removed from Chrome
experimental features?
http://caniuse.com/#feat=style-scoped
In suggesting @isolate declaration, I meant it would go inside a scoped
style element. If there are nested scope style elements and each have
@isolate then it
If the goal is to isolate a style sheet or several per a DOM sub tree then why
not just use scoped style element that has imports that apply the stylesheet(s)
only to the sub tree in scope? Obviously, you are talking about preventing
stylesheets applied at a higher level from leaking in. So
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Controlling it through CSS definitely seems to be very high-level. To
me at
least it feels like it requires a lot more answering of how since
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
tl;dr: Cramming a subtree into a TreeScope container and then hanging
that off the DOM would do the job for free (because it bakes all
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Controlling it through CSS definitely seems to be very high-level. To me at
least it feels like it requires a lot more answering of how since it deals
with identifying elements by way of rules/selection in order to
On Jan 9, 2015 8:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I'm wondering if it's feasible to provide developers with the
primitive that the combination of Shadow DOM and CSS Scoping provides.
Namely a way to isolate a subtree from selector matching (of document
stylesheets, not
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I wasn't suggesting anything since I'm not sure what the best way
would be. It has to be some flag that eventually ends up on an element
so when you do selector matching you know what subtrees to ignore. If
you set
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
For clarity, are you suggesting you'd control the matching boundary via CSS
somehow or you'd need an indicator in the tree? A new element/attribute or
something like a fragment root (sort of a shadowroot-lite)?
I wasn't
For the record, I am a huge fan of exploring this. I tried a couple of
times, but was unable to extract this primitive from Shadow DOM in a clean
way. I talked with Tab late last year about restarting this effort, so this
is timely.
:DG
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren
Here's an attempt from 2012. This approach doesn't work (the trivial
plumbing mentioned in the doc is actually highly non-trivial), but maybe
it will give some insights to find the right a proper solution:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Here's an attempt from 2012. This approach doesn't work (the trivial
plumbing mentioned in the doc is actually highly non-trivial), but maybe it
will give some insights to find the right a proper solution:
67 matches
Mail list logo
