Re: [webcomponents] Closed flag proposal breaks ability to audit and automate tests of web pages (#354)

@annevk I assume you mean this link https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases which is linked-to from this email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1386.html.

That document pre-dates all the issues being raised and is therefore not relevant to the discussion that I am arguing should be reopened.

Also, there is no evidence or arguments presented in that document to support the claims that the encapsulation mechanism that is being claimed is required, is in fact required. This is precisely the unresolved issue.

As pointed out by @rniwa above https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/354#issuecomment-162690993, the primary use case presented in favor of it can be totally circumvented by a page author if they so wish, meaning that the so-called closedness for purposes of preventing page authors from accessing it, is in fact not achieved. This specific concern was raised in the discussion I reference above and never settled (or never documented as settled). Here is the the key issue in that discussion thread being raised https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JanMar/0361.html (why is shadowRoot not a sufficient speed bump)

To summarize: we are introducing a new feature into the web that will break at least three applications that are hugely valuable (testing, auditing and applications like Google Feedback) without ever specifically addressing whether this feature is actually needed to achieve the other benefits that web components brings, or whether, on balance, it would be better to do without this proposed new feature and in full knowledge that the benefits of this feature are actually just a ruse and can be circumvented by the specific users who it is designed to "protect" while still managing to stymie the implementors of useful features like the three mentioned above.



---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/354#issuecomment-178001485