- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:00:02 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADh5Ky362ptpt=_1qeGkv95O3BOnzWC2YyB3RpBk10LF_uTtiw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> > wrote: > > That's not the problem, that's a feature :) Think of it as a > > <template> tag for documents. > > I'd think that author expectations would be different given how > external CSS resources work, but maybe. > > > As for the API, do we really want that to be a synchronous API? That > seems future-hostile for two reasons: we want to do more in parallel > (Servo) and we definitely do not want cross-origin to be synchronous > in this manner I think. Maybe it's better if we provide message port > access between the Document objects? And if this is mostly for > applying components to documents, maybe we should not expose API for > that so that it the declarative way can be optimized. > The resources will only block script (just like CSS: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21218), so there's definitely opportunity for parallelism. I am not sure how the message port thing will work. a) It sounds icky from developer ergonomics perspective and b) making sub-resources not block on script sort of ruins my plan for integrating <element> registration. If there's no blocking script, I have no assurances that the <element>s in subresources are registered before script starts running, which means that we'll have to do something like element upgrade, which I worked pretty hard to remove :) :DG<
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 20:00:30 UTC