Re: [Custom Elements] Not requiring hyphens in names.

[Nick Dugger]

I personal don't mind the hyphenation requirement for custom elements. Tab
Atkins brings up a great point about ensuring that new elements will be
able to be added to spec without worry of name conflicts with existing
custom elements on the page. It's much more future proof, in my opinion.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:12 PM, /#!/JoePea  wrote:

> I personally don't like this limitation. I think Custom Elements would
> be better if we could create elements that have   
>  , with the possible exception that we can't override the
> native elements.
>
> Based on my previous email about registering elements on shadow roots,
> I think being able to choose any name would make things just cleaner:
>
> ```js
> //  --- SomeElement.js
> import MyElement from './MyElement'
>
> export default
> class SomeElement extends HTMLElement {
> constructor() {
> this.root = this.createShadowRoot()
> this.root.registerElement('MyElement', MyElement) //
>  or 
>
> const frag = document.createDocumentFragment()
> frag.innerHTML = `
> 
>   
>   ...
>   
> 
> `
> this.root.appendChild(frag)
> }
>
> static get observedAttributes() { return [ ... ] }
> connectedCallback() { ... }
> disconnectedCallback() { ... }
> attributeChangedCallback() { ... }
> }
>
> //  --- app.js
> import SomeElement from './SomeElement'
>
> // elements registered on the document won't cross into shadow roots
> document.registerElement('SomeElement', SomeElement)
> document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('someelement'))
> ```
>
> /#!/JoePea
>
>

Re: HTML5's Offline-first Council of Trent

[Nick Dugger]

Listen, you may not be here to make friends, but if you want to incite
change, you might try playing nicely. If you just want results, you'll have
greater success without your sarcasm and superiority complex.

Fresh start? If you make a good case, without calling the w3c a mafia,
people might actually engage this more seriously. As of right now, I can't
speak for everyone, but I definitely don't like your tone.

Thanks,
Nick Dugger

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 1:52 AM Anders Rundgren 
wrote:

> On 2016-03-17 07:12, Richard Maher wrote:
> >> An even more powerful (but also ignored possibility) would be COMBINING
> the power
> >> of the Web and App worlds instead of fighting religious wars ("the Web
> is great"),
> >> where there are no winners, only lost opportunities.
> >
> > That's what plugins were for wan't it? And I still cry every night over
> the death of Applets :-(
> > (A single mutliplexed (static) TCP/IP full-duplex connection per
> user-agent!)
>
> Plugins were deprecated which (IMO) was OK since they had serious security
> issues, what's
> less satisfactory is removing features without consider some kind of
> reasonable replacement.
>
> Several other somewhat related features are currently also subject to
> removal/deprecation.
>
>
> >> It gets worse...if you are the Web tech leader then you are apparently
> free taking
> >> this "shortcut" (some people would rather characterize this as an
> intelligent use
> >> of available resources and competences), and get away with it as well:
> >> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/42#issuecomment-166705416
> >
> > C'mon Anders, do you blame them?
>
> Well, Google more or less wrote the "Grand Plan" and now they are
> defecting from it,
> while leaving everybody else with the old (non-working) plan and
> _severely_disadvantaged_.
>
>
> > Faced with the intractability, self-interest, and narcissism  surrounding
>  > the IOC^h^h^hW3C Gordian knot, are you really surprised that  someone
> owning
>  > the implementation will pull out their sword and opt for results over
> process?
>
> I (naively) thought that maybe _somebody_else_ (with more influence than a
> non-member like me), would be interested in taking a closer look at this
> powerful capability.  I only seek a constructive discussion on what to do
> now.
>
> Anders
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Anders Rundgren <
> anders.rundgren@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-03-17 06:00, Richard Maher wrote:
> >
> > Hi Patrick (Congratulations on today) Technical Point follows: -
> >
> > On a merit-based resource allocation basis, the two most
> fundamental, essential,
> >
> > > and absolutely necessary HTML5 Web-App feature enhancements are: -
> >
> >
> > 1) Background GPS device/user tracking support
> > 2) Push API 1:M broadcast capability
> >
> > These are enabling technologies that will catapult HTML5 Web
> Apps into the
> >
> > > Native App heartland and single-handedly alter the
> development-tool and deployment
> > > strategies for Mobile App vendors around the world.
> >
> > An even more powerful (but also ignored possibility) would be
> COMBINING the power
> > of the Web and App worlds instead of fighting religious wars ("the
> Web is great"),
> > where there are no winners, only lost opportunities.
> >
> > It gets worse...if you are the Web tech leader then you are
> apparently free taking
> > this "shortcut" (some people would rather characterize this as an
> intelligent use
> > of available resources and competences), and get away with it as
> well:
> > https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/42#issuecomment-166705416
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > The reason these features do not appear on the W3C horizon is
> that they show-case online-first and are anathema to the Offline-First
> Mafia that is currently setting the agenda and feathering its own nest.
> >
> > Technically, I have to admit to having absolutely no idea how a
> W3C performance review would be conducted or how ROI on a given
> contributor's input could be measured. I am a simple man who just needs a
> couple more tools in the box in order to deliver the killer Web Apps my
> users are begging for.
> >
> > Where I come from, and certainly from my experience in London
> financ

Re: HTML5's Offline-first Council of Trent

[Nick Dugger]

> Nick, while we're waiting for Léonie to lecture you
on participation-criteria,  etiquette, and social competence [...]

That was actually my very first message on any of these mailing lists, so
it was manually approved by a moderator. I'm very confused about how you
think I broke etiquette and you did not? This whole thread could be the
poster child of how not to engage with other people.

Thanks,
Nick Dugger

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 4:48 AM Patrick H. Lauke 
wrote:

> On 18/03/2016 03:52, Richard Maher wrote:
> > I've found someone who has more credibility and form here and is willing
> > to take the idea forward.
>
> Let's hope that someone also understands what it means to make a
> technical argument, without resorting to some House of Commons Tory
> Obxbridge debating style with thinly veiled ad-hominems.
>
> https://twitter.com/JoeSondow/status/692170578023862273
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>