W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2012

[Bug 18535] [Custom]: Scoping of element definitions in Shadow DOM

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:34:25 +0000
Message-Id: <E1T0lQ9-0003k6-KG@jessica.w3.org>
To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:04:25 UTC