On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> We currently use two different approaches for associating JavaScript
>> wrappers with DOM objects. For some objects, we store the wrapper
>> inline in the object itself by making object in
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> We currently use two different approaches for associating JavaScript
> wrappers with DOM objects. For some objects, we store the wrapper
> inline in the object itself by making object inherit from
> ScriptWrappable. For other types of objects, we
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> It seems worth noting over here that on the whatwg discussion for this,
> "native" really means "Mac and Ubuntu". Notably it's not clear whether
> this matches Windows, which is 90+% of the userbase for Chrome. I am a
> little nervous makin
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
>> On the other hand, what about JSC bindings?
>
> JSC bindings do not store the wrapper in two places.
I'm not sure I fully understand your message. JSC uses
ScriptWrappable for Nodes and uses a HashMap for non-Nodes (in the
main world), ju
> On the other hand, what about JSC bindings?
JSC bindings do not store the wrapper in two places.
Geoff
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
It seems worth noting over here that on the whatwg discussion for this,
"native" really means "Mac and Ubuntu". Notably it's not clear whether
this matches Windows, which is 90+% of the userbase for Chrome. I am a
little nervous making blanket statements like "this is native behavior"
when we're
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>> 01.11.2012, в 10:36, Adam Barth написал(а):
>>> Today, we use ScriptWrappable for Nodes only, but we would benefit by
>>> making more use of ScriptWrappable, particularly for DOM o
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Kentaro Hara wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Thanks to the recent efforts of Adam Barth, V8 bindings are going to
>> remove the need to enumerate all wrappers, and thus the HashMap does
>> not need to store all wrappers.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Kentaro Hara wrote:
> ...
>
> Thanks to the recent efforts of Adam Barth, V8 bindings are going to
> remove the need to enumerate all wrappers, and thus the HashMap does
> not need to store all wrappers. On the other hand, what about JSC
> bindings?
>
JSC has a map
Sounds like a good idea.
> For some objects, we store the wrapper
> inline in the object itself by making object inherit from
> ScriptWrappable. For other types of objects, we use a HashMap to
> translate the object into a JavaScript wrapper.
The current situation is not "either ScriptWrappable
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> 01.11.2012, в 10:36, Adam Barth написал(а):
>> Today, we use ScriptWrappable for Nodes only, but we would benefit by
>> making more use of ScriptWrappable, particularly for DOM objects that
>> almost always have JavaScript wrappers. F
Hi all,
I am trying to implement https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
"[css3-text] Add support for -webkit-text-decoration-skip" and have some doubts
about the best way to do it for all parsed values for
-webkit-text-decoration-skip (objects, spaces, ink) [1]
The attached patch
We currently use two different approaches for associating JavaScript
wrappers with DOM objects. For some objects, we store the wrapper
inline in the object itself by making object inherit from
ScriptWrappable. For other types of objects, we use a HashMap to
translate the object into a JavaScript
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > I like the idea of being more like native control behavior.
>
> I agree. I'll update the patch to match Gecko's mostly native, but web
> friendly behavior.
>
Sounds like we all a
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
> Is our current behavior the same as the "every browser engine, except Gecko"
> behavior described above?
Yes.
- Native *never* moves focus, even if the control is focusable (ex.
the wireless networks list in OS X Preferences.app)
I like those slides. Thanks for putting them where we can all see and use them.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> It is/was intended to be useful for quickly reviewing and rebaselining
> a bunch of failures in a local (on-disk) checkout. It's been largely
> unmaintained and ignored for quite some time in favor of
> garden-o-matic.
>
> I have recently sta
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> I'd like to r+ https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96335, but wanted to
> give a heads up in case anyone wants to object.
>
> Every native platform that has scrollbars does *not* move focus when you
> click on them. Every browser engine, ex
18 matches
Mail list logo
