W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:45:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky2nn5bR0G_FY5o91uYDcZ5zWU7rG1HvRnf0+pB7OUHUTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren (annevk@annevk.nl)" <annevk@annevk.nl>, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Ah, thanks Dimitri.
>
>
>  After reading that, I'm also receiving it rather "coolly". It's a very
> interesting idea, but as it relates to web components, its errs strongly on
> the side of isolation to the degree that the component would be more
> isolated than an iframe today; at least in same-domain, non-sandboxed
> iframes, you can directly access the document via the contentWindow
> property if desired; furthermore styling of this DOMWorker thing which is
> running in a separate thread would be complex to say the least from an
> implementation standpoint. I definitely want to stay firmly on the same
> thread for Shadow DOMs [image: 😊].
>
Threads don't necessarily come into play here. The proposal doesn't mention
it, but Elliott specifically wanted to stay on the same thread. This is not
technically a "worker", more like an "isolator". But anyway -- it does
sound different from your idea, which I captured into
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28211.

:DG<


emoji_u1f60a.png
(image/png attachment: emoji_u1f60a.png)

Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 20:45:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:26 UTC