W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: XBL2: First Thoughts and Use Cases

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:12:10 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9Hc9bMpG9kjb3oDQj2WH9mO84WXDuDSFv_tpG@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Robert O'Callahan
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the use cases, I couldn't think of anything that would
>> require this type of functionality -- at least not at the cost of its
>> complexity and performance implications.
>>
>> Perhaps something simpler, forward-only would be a better solution?
>> Maybe a template is just a stencil that provides a declarative way to
>> describe how the shadow DOM is wired up. Once the instance is
>> stenciled, it has no knowledge of where or how it was created.
>
> We definitely have use-cases that require the shadow DOM to be dynamically
> updated when an element that expands to a template instance has its subtree
> changed. Almost every application that combines dynamic DOM modification
> (e.g. editing) with templates needs this. So you do need to record how
> instances were created.

Can you give a more specific example?

> I agree that handling dynamic updates to the bindings document is less
> well-motivated. It might be useful for a template editor. But a template
> editor could probably just unapply the entire bindings document, modify it,
> and reapply it.
>
> Rob
> --
> "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
> they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
> every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
>
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 16:12:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT