On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com> > wrote: > > That's not the problem, that's a feature :) Think of it as a > > <template> tag for documents. > > I'd think that author expectations would be different given how > external CSS resources work, but maybe. > > > As for the API, do we really want that to be a synchronous API? That > seems future-hostile for two reasons: we want to do more in parallel > (Servo) and we definitely do not want cross-origin to be synchronous > in this manner I think. Maybe it's better if we provide message port > access between the Document objects? And if this is mostly for > applying components to documents, maybe we should not expose API for > that so that it the declarative way can be optimized. > The resources will only block script (just like CSS: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21218), so there's definitely opportunity for parallelism. I am not sure how the message port thing will work. a) It sounds icky from developer ergonomics perspective and b) making sub-resources not block on script sort of ruins my plan for integrating <element> registration. If there's no blocking script, I have no assurances that the <element>s in subresources are registered before script starts running, which means that we'll have to do something like element upgrade, which I worked pretty hard to remove :) :DG<