Re: [components] Apple's consolidated feedback on Web Components

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > In preparation for Fridays’ face-to-face, a number of us at Apple (including > me, Ryosuke Niwa, Sam Weinig, and Ted O’Connor I forgot to mention that Gavin Barraclough also contributed to this discussion. We al

[components] Apple's consolidated feedback on Web Components

Hi everyone, In preparation for Fridays’ face-to-face, a number of us at Apple (including me, Ryosuke Niwa, Sam Weinig, and Ted O’Connor) got together to collect our thoughts and feedback about the current state of Web Components. Before going into the changes we propose, we want to reiterate

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Justin Fagnani wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ryosuke Niwa > wrote: > >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Justin Fagnani > > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa >

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jan Miksovsky wrote: > Hi Tab, > > Thanks for your feedback! > > A primary motivation for proposing names instead of CSS selectors to > control distribution is to enable subclassing. We think it’s important for > a subclass to be able to override a base class inse

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > Between

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

Ugh, hit send too fast. In the university site example below, the instance should have been written: Faculty –Jan > On Apr 22, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Jan Miksovsky wrote: > > Hi Tab, > > Thanks for your feedback! > > A primary motivation for proposing names instead of CSS selectors to contro

[Bug 28547] New: Remove the support for inherting from builtin subclasses of HTMLElement and SVGElement

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28547 Bug ID: 28547 Summary: Remove the support for inherting from builtin subclasses of HTMLElement and SVGElement Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC

[Bug 28546] New: document.registerElement should take a template as an argument

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28546 Bug ID: 28546 Summary: document.registerElement should take a template as an argument Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All

[Bug 28545] New: Declarative syntax for custom elements

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28545 Bug ID: 28545 Summary: Declarative syntax for custom elements Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 28544] New: Custom elements should not upgrade elements by setting prototype

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28544 Bug ID: 28544 Summary: Custom elements should not upgrade elements by setting prototype Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

Hi Tab, Thanks for your feedback! A primary motivation for proposing names instead of CSS selectors to control distribution is to enable subclassing. We think it’s important for a subclass to be able to override a base class insertion point. That seems easier to achieve with a name. It lets co

[Bug 28543] New: Custom elements should call user defined constructor synchronously

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28543 Bug ID: 28543 Summary: Custom elements should call user defined constructor synchronously Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All

[Bug 28542] New: [Shadow] Replace node distribution mechanism by the named slot proposal

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28542 Bug ID: 28542 Summary: [Shadow] Replace node distribution mechanism by the named slot proposal Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Al

[Bug 28541] New: Custom elements should use ES6 class constructor

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28541 Bug ID: 28541 Summary: Custom elements should use ES6 class constructor Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severit

RE: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

I like that the light-side DOM elements must opt-in to being redistributed. While appearing at first like a hindrance, it does ensure that elements can't be arbitrarily re-distributed without their consent. If you imagine allowing redistribution into a cross-origin shadow dom, then it becomes so

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On 04/22/2015 03:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: Between content-slot-specified sl

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

For the comparison, I've re-written the examples by using " as function" syntax. https://gist.github.com/hayatoito/f2df8e10cb8cc551f80c Can I assume that both have the same power, fundamentally? (Please ignore that power of the CSS selector here ;) If both approaches have the (almost) equivalent

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

FWIW, I can see the appeal of a slot-based approach in Ryosuke/Ted/Jan proposal. It reduces the implementation complexity: all of the selector-checking logic in http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#satisfying-matching-criteria is replaced with (what effectively is) a map lookup. While

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: Between content-slot-specified slots, attribute-specified slots, e

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Justin Fagnani > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > >> >> > On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Justin Fagnani >> wrote: >> > >> > I do want the ability to redirect distributed

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: >>> Between content-slot-specified slots, attribute-specified slots, >>> element-named slots, and everything-else-slots, we're

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: >> Between content-slot-specified slots, attribute-specified slots, >> element-named slots, and everything-else-slots, we're now in a weird place >> where we've reinvented a micro-langua

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Justin Fagnani wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa > wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Justin Fagnani > > wrote: > > > > I do want the ability to redirect distributed

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

I don't think defining a slot based on an attribute value is something we'd like to support. > On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Justin Fagnani wrote: > > Another technique I've seen used is compound selectors, which could be used > to migrate from one selector to another while preserving backward

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > Between content-slot-specified slots, attribute-specified slots, > element-named slots, and everything-else-slots, we're now in a weird place > where we've reinvented a micro-language with some, but not all, of the power > of CSS sele

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

FWIW, we're working to implement what we call named blocks in Ember.js and believe this proposal aligns very closely to what our users have been asking us to build for them. - Erik On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > This is literally reinventing Selectors at this point. The

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

This is literally reinventing Selectors at this point. The solution to "we don't think it's worth implementing *all* of Selectors" is to define a subset of supported Selectors, not to define a brand new mechanism that's equivalent to selectors but with a new syntax. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21

[Bug 28539] New: [Shadow]: Typos Spefifies and Speficies

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28539 Bug ID: 28539 Summary: [Shadow]: Typos Spefifies and Speficies Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

Another technique I've seen used is compound selectors, which could be used to migrate from one selector to another while preserving backwards compatibility, or to provide some nice default distributions that are also accessible via a class or attribute (ie, select="header, .header"). Could slots

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Justin Fagnani > wrote: > > > > I do want the ability to redirect distributed nodes into a holes in the > base template, so that part is welcome to me. However, my first reaction to > the slot idea is that

RE: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

Between content-slot-specified slots, attribute-specified slots, element-named slots, and everything-else-slots, we're now in a weird place where we've reinvented a micro-language with some, but not all, of the power of CSS selectors. Is adding a new micro-language to the web platform worth help

Proposed W3C CG - The Extended Web

https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2015/04/19/proposed-group-the-extended-web-community-group/ Since the CG description is free from "political" stuff, I included it here :-) Most of the things exposed in the system-level (native) APIs of Android, iOS, Windows, etc. could indeed be provided in w

Re: Proposal for changes to manage Shadow DOM content distribution

On Apr 21, 2015 10:29 PM, "Ryosuke Niwa" wrote: > > >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:17 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: >> >> On Apr 21, 2015 8:22 PM, "Ryosuke Niwa" wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Following WebApps discussion last year [1] and earlier this year [2] about template transclusions and inherit