> > 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 UTC