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

[webcomponents]: Scope of <link rel=components>, was: Naming the Baby

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:59:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3CmdJQUrdqvns=03xNVa-KMG8j7gZ234qnFW86z86Hgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Angelina Fabbro <angelinafabbro@gmail.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Ladislav Thon <ladicek@gmail.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
Splitting off the thread for sanity.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> I think I'd like to know the scope of what this feature might evolve
> into. If this features is going to be used eventually to instantiate
> components through markup the fetching security model used might not
> be the best one. It would give the embedding page about as much
> trouble as it gets via including <script> cross-origin today.

There is one big part that will effectively fill out the scope:

After all resources are loaded and processed, we'll need to process
<element> instances, in reverse order of loading. Processing means:

1) Registering a custom element, specified by this <element>. This
will involve running its children <script> elements with some special
2) Running element upgrade:

As for the fetching security model, I have a bug for this:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21226. Please guide me,
would love your fetch-spec-writing experience :)

As an additional wrinkle, the webdevs really want this:

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 15:59:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:59 UTC