- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:48:52 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mozilla.com>
* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: >> Until we can agree on this, Type 2 feels like an attractive nuisance and, on >> reflection, one that I think we should punt to compilers like caja in the >> interim. If toolkits need it, I'd like to understand those use-cases from >> experience. > >I think Maciej explains fairly well in >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1364.html >why it's good to have. Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements, >which I thought was one of the things we are trying to solve here. The desire to retrofit built-ins into cross-browser component technology has not been very helpful to deliver component technology into the hands of authors. I also note that "Encapsulation against deliberate access" would make it quite difficult to automate components for testing and other purposes; in many cases you would be unable to make a reduced test case that shows some defect in a third party component that others can load in their web browser without difficulty; and automation tools would need a privileged API to break the encapsulation. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 19:49:25 UTC