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

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <> wrote:
> I just mirrored LinkStyle
> ( here. Given
> that  document already has URL, you're right -- I don't need the
> Component interface at all. LinkComponent could just have a content
> attribute that returns Document. Also, there's no need for
> sub-classing anything. Components are just documents.

If you still want to point to the embedding element though you'll need
to subclass Document in some way, but maybe that is not needed for

>> 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.
> 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 elements.

Because they don't have an associated browsing context? What other use
case are you describing here? That seems like a potential problem by
the way. That subresources from such a document such as <img> will not
load because there's no associated browsing context.


Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 18:42:28 UTC