Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:02:25 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote: Anne van Kesteren: > > > Lets at least remove sequence from the draft then. Cameron McCormack: > > Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different > > purpose from things like No

Component Model Should Use DOM Object Inheritance

Summary: There is no need to build another type of inheritance into the component model, since all DOM already has an inheritance mechanism. Another set of thoughts around use cases (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases) A large part of complexity of the current XBL2 draft comes

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

Ian Hickson: > Makes sense. What I really want is a NodeList-like interface, but ideally > one that supports all the Array accessors, but I don't want to have to > redefine it each time. Is there some way we could get a "macro" for that > kind of thing? > > See also: >http://www.w3.org/Bugs

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Ian Hickson: > > Web Apps 1.0 will change if you need it to. Don't constrain on my account > > here. I'll do whatever you think we should do. The only places I use it > > are in an argument to a method because I want to allow authors to pass in > >

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

Ian Hickson: > Web Apps 1.0 will change if you need it to. Don't constrain on my account > here. I'll do whatever you think we should do. The only places I use it > are in an argument to a method because I want to allow authors to pass in > literal JS Arrays of values, and on a NodeList descenda

RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21

This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/ If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April 2011 at the latest: public-webapps@w3.org -Art Barstow

RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events; deadline April 21

This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-eventsource-20110310/ If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April 2011 at the latest: public-webapps@w3.org -Art Barstow

RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Progress Events; deadline June 1

This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of Progress Events: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110310/ If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 1 June 2011 at the latest: public-webapps@w3.org -Art Barstow

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

On 03/10/2011 02:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: serialization, but it's easy to imagine it also having an XML serialization for use directly in SVG or similar. ~TJ Certainly, we'd prefer to have an XML representation of the component language for use with XForms for similar reasons. XForms is

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Anne van Kesteren: > > > > Lets at least remove sequence from the draft then. > > Cameron McCormack: > > > Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different > > > purpose from things like NodeList, like passing in native Array > > > objec

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Le 10/03/11 16:55, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> The HTML serialization of an ordinary web page isn't usable in a user >> agent having no knowledge of HTML, either.  Why is this different? > > Do you have different serializations for another h

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Le 10/03/11 16:55, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : The HTML serialization of an ordinary web page isn't usable in a user agent having no knowledge of HTML, either. Why is this different? Do you have different serializations for another helper technology called CSS ? No. Why should it be different he

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/10/11 4:58 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> We want to be useful and not in the way for this use case. > > Agreed-ish. > >> For the cases where isolation is necessary, be that mashups or >> browser's implementation of HTML elements >> >> (h

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >> CDNs of various sorts, dedicated hostnames for different sorts of content >> (a la existing images.something.com setups), that sort of thing. >> >> If we want to not allow cross

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On 3/10/11 4:58 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > We want to be useful and not in the way for this use case. Agreed-ish. For the cases where isolation is necessary, be that mashups or browser's implementation of HTML elements (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases#Built-in_HTML_Eleme

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >> 1)  Cross-site components are safe to use. >> 2)  You can't screw up and depend on implementation details of a >>    component, because if you're calling something the component

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/9/11 7:30 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >>> >>> From the perspective of the component, the isolation is unfairly >> >> punishing -- you can't use the outside DOM or even DOM element on >> which you're hoisted, you can't add methods to it, an

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > CDNs of various sorts, dedicated hostnames for different sorts of content > (a la existing images.something.com setups), that sort of thing. > > If we want to not allow cross-site loading at all, those cases break. If we > want to allow it,

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Le 10/03/11 16:46, Cameron McCormack a écrit : > >> We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather than an XML- >> based thing.  Then we can have HTML syntax for the cases where >> everything is within a text/html document, and XM

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Le 10/03/11 16:46, Cameron McCormack a écrit : We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather than an XML- based thing. Then we can have HTML syntax for the cases where everything is within a text/html document, and XML syntax for the cases like the ones I brought up, where you might

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Cameron++ Also, this is a public wiki. If you feel like the use cases aren't covering the problem domain to your satisfaction, please feel encouraged to make additions. :DG< On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Daniel Glazman: >> Ok, so don't focus on the "proposal" word

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Daniel Glazman: > Ok, so don't focus on the "proposal" word in my message. My comment > still stands : keeping XBL as an XML-based thing is good for user > agents that don't need to have knowledge of a given dialect, HTML > for instance. We should think of XBL as being a DOM-based thing, rather th

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Le 10/03/11 16:37, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit : That's just use cases. I used the latest draft of XBL2 for syntax -- might as well be pseudocode at this point. Ok, so don't focus on the "proposal" word in my message. My comment still stands : keeping XBL as an XML-based thing is good for user age

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

That's just use cases. I used the latest draft of XBL2 for syntax -- might as well be pseudocode at this point. :DG< On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Le 10/03/11 16:26, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit : >> >> Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel >>

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Le 10/03/11 16:26, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit : Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel referring to? I don't think there is one yet? This kind of things for instance? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases#Reacting_to_bound_element_state_change

Fwd: Moving XBL et al. forward

Now from the right address. I blame Art for using my @google.com address :P -- Forwarded message -- From: Dimitri Glazkov Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM Subject: Re: Moving XBL et al. forward To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps , Daniel Glazman , Ian Hickson , "ext Klotz, L

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Ok, this is interesting. Which proposal by Google is ghost of Daniel referring to? I don't think there is one yet? :DG< On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > All - Daniel Glazman responded to this subject on a Member-only list and he > gave me permission to fwd his response to

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

All - Daniel Glazman responded to this subject on a Member-only list and he gave me permission to fwd his response to this list: [[ My personal take about it is that the HTML-based component model proposed by Google is not desirable. It's an HTML-browser centric solution that will require from n

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On 3/10/11 3:35 PM, Adam Barth wrote: IMHO, it's important to make cross-site interactions predictable. Yes, agreed. Now, you might say that

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/10/11 4:59 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky > > wrote: >> >>    1)  Cross-site components are safe to use. >> >> I'm less enthusiastic about #1. In many situation

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

Anne van Kesteren: > > > Lets at least remove sequence from the draft then. Cameron McCormack: > > Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different > > purpose from things like NodeList, like passing in native Array > > objects to DOM methods. So I don’t think we should remove it. A

Re: [eventsource] Moving Server-sent Events spec back to Last Call

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:06:25 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: > > Zero, one or two BOMs before an event. > > > > Parsing of comments with zero, one, or 2049 bytes of content, on either > > side of a real field. > > > > Handling of unknown fields. Handling

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On 3/10/11 4:59 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu>> wrote: 1) Cross-site components are safe to use. I'm less enthusiastic about #1. In many situations, perhaps most, developers can choose to trust a component and host it th

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

Here's some use cases and examples of how a subset of XBL2 is used to define components in XForms. We'd like to be able to support this type of work. We expect it would be done as part of a JavaScript or server-side process, and so we just need the language to be able to express the namespaced

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:33:27 +0100, Cameron McCormack wrote: Anne van Kesteren: Lets at least remove sequence from the draft then. Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different purpose from things like NodeList, like passing in native Array objects to DOM methods. So I don’t

Re: [eventsource] Moving Server-sent Events spec back to Last Call

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:06:25 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: Zero, one or two BOMs before an event. Parsing of comments with zero, one, or 2049 bytes of content, on either side of a real field. Handling of unknown fields. Handling of fields with names similar to but not identical to valid fields, in

Re: Component Model is not an Isolation Model

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 1) Cross-site components are safe to use. > 2) You can't screw up and depend on implementation details of a >component, because if you're calling something the component >provides then you're using APIs the component explicitly exp

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

Anne van Kesteren: > Lets at least remove sequence from the draft then. Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different purpose from things like NodeList, like passing in native Array objects to DOM methods. So I don’t think we should remove it. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.i

Re: [FileAPI] Why is FileList a sequence?

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:10:00 +0100, Cameron McCormack wrote: Anne van Kesteren: I think the construct of a parametrized type makes a lot of sense. But it should work like the types we have to date, so that NodeList, StyleSheetList, CSSRuleList, etc. can actually be defined (and implemented) as