On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
> On Dec 23, 2011 1:00 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> > In your example, you lost me on this part:
>> >
>> > // Insert Bob's shadow tree under the election story box.
>> > root.a
On Dec 23, 2011 1:00 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > In your example, you lost me on this part:
> >
> > // Insert Bob's shadow tree under the election story box.
> > root.appendChild(document.createElement('shadow'));
> >
> > Is that wron
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> In your example, you lost me on this part:
>
> // Insert Bob's shadow tree under the election story box.
> root.appendChild(document.createElement('shadow'));
>
> Is that wrong? If not, can you explain it?
Sure. Since Alice's shadow DOM sub
In your example, you lost me on this part:
// Insert Bob's shadow tree under the election story box.
root.appendChild(document.createElement('shadow'));
Is that wrong? If not, can you explain it? also... How does this patter
give browsers timely enough information to avoid fouc? It feels like
Quick note : That is the single best draft prose I have ever read :)
On Dec 22, 2011 6:56 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
> BTW, added an example:
>
> dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#shadow-dom-example
>
> :DG<
>
BTW, added an example:
dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#shadow-dom-example
:DG<
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> So... I was going to ask a follow up here but as I tried to formulate I went
> back to the draft and it became kind of clear that I don't actually
> understand shadow or content elements at all... ShadowRoot has a
> constructor, but it doesn
So... I was going to ask a follow up here but as I tried to formulate I
went back to the draft and it became kind of clear that I don't actually
understand shadow or content elements at all... ShadowRoot has a
constructor, but it doesn't seem to have anything in its signature that
would give you a
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> >> ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
>> >> this what you had in mind?
>> >
>> >
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> >> ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
> >> this what you had in mind?
> >
> > CSSOM interfaces are attached to the document specifically though -
> ri
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
>> this what you had in mind?
>
> CSSOM interfaces are attached to the document specifically though - right?
> And they (at least that I can recall) have no association con
Good job!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712622
On 12/21/2011 01:23 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Happy Holidays!
In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
the Shadow DOM Specification:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.ht
> ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
> this what you had in mind?
CSSOM interfaces are attached to the document specifically though - right?
And they (at least that I can recall) have no association concept with
scope (yet)... So I think that implies that unless y
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a prefix?
>
> I also think some examples actually showing some handling of events and use
> of css would be really helpful here... The upper boundary for css vs
> inheritance I t
Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a prefix?
I also think some examples actually showing some handling of events and use
of css would be really helpful here... The upper boundary for css vs
inheritance I think would be made especially easier to understand with a
good e
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Dimitri,
>
> You wrote:
>
>> In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
>> the Shadow DOM Specification:
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
>
> Awesome. Thanks for writ
On 12/20/11 4:49 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
#player::controls
I'm worried that users may stomp all over the CSS WG's ability to mint
future pseudo-element names. I'd rather use a functional syntax to
distinguish between custom, user-defined pseudo-elements and
engine-supplied, CSS WG-blesse
Hi Dimitri,
You wrote:
> In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
> the Shadow DOM Specification:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
Awesome. Thanks for writing this up! Obviously, I'll have to read this
more closely while hidi
Happy Holidays!
In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
the Shadow DOM Specification:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
It's not quite a Christmas miracle, more like that extra unlabeled
gift box you found in the drapes while bre
19 matches
Mail list logo
