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

RE: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:35:31 +0000
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB389E81D11CB89A6E545FDF4F8000@BLUPR03MB389.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I think ‘Worker’ threw me off at first ☺.

My original use case was to make the current model of loading components more “local”, as AFAIK, these components can only presently be loaded by code you trust, e.g., via some script library somewhere imported via a <script> tag, or by way of <link rel=import> which pulls in same-origin or CORS-approved cross-origin content.

I hadn’t considered cross-domain components, which is another interesting use-case, I agree.

The bit of magic in this proposal that improves on the iframe experience is the SharedWorker-like single instance across related components.

Generally speaking, is cross-origin components something that we should be looking to address? The strong isolation is a good model, but very restrictive and not that far-different from iframes IMO. I also can’t help thinking how the discussion of closed vs. open component access relates to cross-origin (or not) components.

From: Dimitri Glazkov [mailto:dglazkov@google.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:07 AM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: Travis Leithead; WebApps WG; Arron Eicholz; Elliott Sprehn
Subject: Re: [Shadow] URL-based shadows?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl<mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com<mailto:dglazkov@google.com>> wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7ci1-lBTY6AJxgN99aCMwjZKCjKv1v3y_7WLtcgM00/edit?pli=1

That seems really cool. I'm not sure worker is the right terminology
since at the moment worker sort of implies there's no node tree
available due to the complexity that would give. But an isolated
global for a set of reusable components that are mixed into the
document seems roughly in line with what we have with <input> et al


Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 21:35:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:44 UTC