W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

RE: Fallout of non-encapsulated shadow trees

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 01:18:21 +0000
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
CC: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ea541bace0d844d98e775a759921ced6@BN1PR05MB325.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brendan Eich [mailto:brendan@secure.meer.net] 

> I don't even know what 3 means. Is it well defined, or just some utopia?

I think it is as well defined as 2 is. Both are really in terms of vague requirements:

2. Widget libraries should be implementable without leaking implementation details to non-determined consumers.
3. Widget libraries should be implementable without leaking implementation details to determined consumers.

> Let's work on 1 first, then get to 2, and declare victory.

I think the crux of my argument is that this would be a mistake.

> If Maciej is loath to implement 1 before 2, because widget APIs will leak implementation details, perhaps we shouldn't standardize in a hurry. I still see value in multiple implementors tracking a draft standard spec.

I fully agree with this, however.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 01:18:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC