[Bug 26033] Make distribution algorithm forward compatible with <shadow> as function call.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26033

--- Comment #8 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
Thank you. My understanding is your proposal sounds to get a forward
compatibility by breaking the feature which are currently used.

I don't find any point why your proposal, plan B (See bellow), is better than
plan A, I am planning.
Plan A is no worse than Plan B, isn't it?



Plan A:
1. Bringing back <shadow> as function. As long as <shadow> elements don't have
child elements, there will be no compatibility issue.


Plan B:
1. Introduce the proposed change before bringing back <shadow> as function.
   As a result, we'll get a forward compatibility, but will lose the important
feature which are currently used. That would be hard to accept.
2. Then, bringing back <shadow> as function later.



(In reply to William Chen from comment #7)
> (In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #6)
> > Your proposal can't achieve that, can that?
> 
> Shadow as function call can achieve what you are trying to do in your
> particular example by placing a content insertion point as a child of the
> shadow element.
> 
> My proposal is a minimal change to ensure that the spec is forwards
> compatible with shadow as function call semantics. If you bring back the
> behavior, then that's even better.

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

Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 03:07:40 UTC