W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

RE: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:22:45 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
CC: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Arron Eicholz" <arronei@microsoft.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB38993B37CBDF5F58949B6FDF8C10@BLUPR03MB389.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
This works for me too.

And I like the proposed new bikeshed-ed names Anne suggests below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@annevk.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:10 PM
To: Dimitri Glazkov
Cc: Scott Miles; Ryosuke Niwa; Edward O'Connor; Travis Leithead; Maciej Stachowiak; Arron Eicholz; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
> Given that all vendors agreed that "C" can wait until v2, we could 
> just focus on concretizing the "slots" proposal and then put a lid on 
> Shadow DOM v1.
> What do you think, folks?

This probably works for Mozilla. It would be good to see the proposed processing model and its implications for an eventual imperative API.
It's somewhat troubling we don't agree on synchronous vs when-layout-or-event-dispatch-happens.

Also, I suggest we bikeshed the markup in the direction of slot=some-slot-name and <slot name=some-slot-name> rather than content-slot=some-slot-name and <content slot=some-slot-name>.


Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 17:23:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC