W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [webcomponents]: First stab at the Web Components spec

From: Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:22:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+rMWZieLu8GsAYYma4rcdUXUCQqniwP1OCok0zVoS_GadHJLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
>
> 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, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@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 expose
> resources as CORS-cross-origin. Also, for rel=component tainted
> resources make no sense, so we should only use "No CORS" in
> combination with "fail".
>
> Why is Component not simply a subclass of Document? If you already
> have a Document object you might as well use that directly...
>
> Also, it sounds like this specification should be titled "Fetching
> components" or some such as that's about all it defines. Can't we just
> put all the component stuff in one specification? I find the whole
> organization quite confusing.
>
>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:38:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:58 GMT