- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:34:25 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18535
Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dominicc@chromium.org
--- Comment #2 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> 2012-08-13 03:34:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Should element definitions (the <element> thingies) be scoped inside
> of a shadow DOM subtree?
>
> ...
>
> This means that you will have to explicitly state which components you
> want to use inside of each <element>, but also means that you can have
> a whole set of internal components that aren't surfaced to the
> document.
The proposed solution might be workable for large, complex components that have
a single instance on a page. However if there are going to be multiple
instances of a component on a page, something that means each instance has its
own copy of the element definitions sounds heavyweight.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Experience suggests that this kind of collision is easily worked
> around by library authors, by a combination of simple prefixing and just
> googling for names beforehand. I don't think we need to give it a technical
> solution.
Is it so easily worked around?
What about the related problem of integrating two copies of different versions
of the same script library in the same page?
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 03:34:26 UTC