Le 7 mars 2013 à 18:25, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
Here's a first rough draft of the Web Components spec:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/components/index.html
Cool.
I see
link rel=component href=/components/heart.html
Do you plan to allow the HTTP counterpart?
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Karl Dubost k...@la-grange.net wrote:
Le 7 mars 2013 à 18:25, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
Here's a first rough draft of the Web Components spec:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/components/index.html
Cool.
I see
link rel=component
On Mar 18, 2013 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Karl Dubost k...@la-grange.net wrote:
Le 7 mars 2013 à 18:25, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
Here's a first rough draft of the Web Components spec:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Karl Dubost k...@la-grange.net wrote:
Le 7 mars 2013 à 18:25, Dimitri Glazkov a écrit :
Here's a first rough draft of
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Karl Dubost k...@la-grange.net wrote:
Do you plan to allow the HTTP counterpart?
Link: /components/heart.html; rel=component
Does that need to be allowed? I thought the Link
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
Yup, been doing this for a while now. The stylesheet-like behavior seems
to
have settled as the least evil of the compromises. It's an
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
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.
Blocking script for CSS is seen as a large pita and I've
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I recommend discussing this with the HTML parser crowd and performance
crowd. I would've thought we would not want to repeat mistakes made in
the past.
Yup, been doing this for a while now. The stylesheet-like
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
My issue is that the target of this link will not in general be an atomic
thing like a 'component' or a 'module'. It's a carrier for resources and
links to other resources. IMO this is one of the great strengths of this
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
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
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
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Robert Ginda rgi...@chromium.org wrote:
rel=include ?
And Inclusions as the name? Or HTML Inclusions? This could work.
Any objections or better names? Rob might just win this one.
:DG
Personally, I had no objection to rel=component. It's similar in usage to
rel=stylesheet in the fact that it's descriptive of what you're linking
to.
On the other hand, rel=include is very broad. It could just as easily
apply to a stylesheet as a Web component, and may limit the usefulness of
the
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Philip Walton phi...@philipwalton.comwrote:
Personally, I had no objection to rel=component. It's similar in
usage to rel=stylesheet in the fact that it's descriptive of what you're
linking to.
On the other hand, rel=include is very broad. It could just as
My issue is that the target of this link will not in general be an atomic
thing like a 'component' or a 'module'. It's a carrier for resources and
links to other resources. IMO this is one of the great strengths of this
proposal.
For this reason, when it was rel=components (plural) there was no
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
My issue is that the target of this link will not in general be an atomic
thing like a 'component' or a 'module'. It's a carrier for resources and
links to other resources. IMO this is one of the great strengths of this
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Please look over it. I look forward to your eagle-eyed insights in the
form of bugs and emails.
You try to monkey patch the obtain algorithm but in doing so you
invoke a different fetch algorithm. One which does not
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
I just mirrored LinkStyle
(http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#the-linkstyle-interface) here. Given
that document already has URL, you're right -- I don't need the
Component interface at all. LinkComponent could just have a
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Components don't directly correlate with custom elements. They are
just documents that you can load together with your document. With
things like multi-threaded parser, these are useful on their own, even
without custom
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
I also find the name confusing. It's common to use the term 'component' when
describing the functionality of a custom element.
What about HTML Modules?
Then we probably need to rename link rel=module for consistency?
:DG
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is better?
The name is difficult. My main point is that using components causes
unnecessary confusion.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013
Also, it sounds like this specification should be titled Fetching
components or some such as that's about all it defines.
I also find the name confusing. It's common to use the term 'component'
when describing the functionality of a custom element.
What about HTML Modules?
On Fri, Mar 8,
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is better?
The name is difficult. My main point is that using components causes
unnecessary confusion.
I understand. Welcome
rel=include ?
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is better?
The name is
yes, it actually is document related to current document... does not
seem confusing to me at all,
but I can go with fragment or stub as well :]
B.
On 8.3.2013 22:25, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote:
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and Anne decided that these targets are
'document', did they not?
rel=document seems to communicate that the relation of the linked
resources to the document is document, which is at least cyclical
Agree. Seems like Dimitri and Anne decided that these targets are
'document', did they not?
Scott
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
hi
let's apply KISS here
how about just
rel=document
or
rel=htmldocument
Brona
On 8.3.2013 22:05,
hi
let's apply KISS here
how about just
rel=document
or
rel=htmldocument
Brona
On 8.3.2013 22:05, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steve Orvell sorv...@google.com wrote:
Indeed. Unfortunately, using 'module' here could be confusing wrt ES6
modules. Perhaps package is
Hello fellow web-appanauts,
The day you've been waiting for had finally arrived (or not, depending
on the type of day been waiting for).
Here's a first rough draft of the Web Components spec:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/components/index.html
This spec looks really
29 matches
Mail list logo
