[Bug 26365] [Shadow]: Need an equivalent definition of 'in a Document' for shadow trees

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26365

--- Comment #37 from Olli Pettay <bugs@pettay.fi> ---
(In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #36)
> Thanks. If we agree that we should include shadow trees hosted by #c in 'D'
> (aka 'in a document deeply), I am wondering what is the difference between:
> 
> - the shadow tree hosted by #c
> and
> -  the oldest shadow tree in the example.
> 
> Any node in either tree isn't used in rendering at all (aka they are not in
> the composed tree (with document as root)), however,
> - Nodes in the shadow tree hosted by #c *are* 'in a document deeply',
> - Nodes in the oldest shadow trees, such as #f and #g, *are not* 'in a
> document deeply'.
> 
> That looks inconsistent to me.
Not to me.
In my mind only the youngest shadow tree is in the documented rooted composed
tree if the host is in document rooted composed tree.
Older shadow trees are in document rooted composed tree only if they are
attached to a shadow insertion point which is in
a document rooted composed tree. 
I think this would be a quite simple way to spec this

> I think 'nodes aren't contributing rendering' doesn't matter here because
> it's like a node with *display: none* in a document.
true


> Each node in shadow trees are 'in a document', conceptually.
Not quite, since the host might not be in a document.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 12:22:20 UTC