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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:27:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3f-SU2RLuJdn4D6ozo395Ea0=hKZP6pWCSYd2+u30iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  I think ‘Worker’ threw me off at first J.
>
>
>
> 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.
>

I think it's worth trying. And it's the only "custom controls" use case
from the original list that we didn't yet address:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases#Custom_Controls

We can discuss the priority of this relative to other use cases.

:DG<
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 22:28:24 UTC

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