- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:12:10 -0800
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> > wrote: >> >> Looking at the use cases, I couldn't think of anything that would >> require this type of functionality -- at least not at the cost of its >> complexity and performance implications. >> >> Perhaps something simpler, forward-only would be a better solution? >> Maybe a template is just a stencil that provides a declarative way to >> describe how the shadow DOM is wired up. Once the instance is >> stenciled, it has no knowledge of where or how it was created. > > We definitely have use-cases that require the shadow DOM to be dynamically > updated when an element that expands to a template instance has its subtree > changed. Almost every application that combines dynamic DOM modification > (e.g. editing) with templates needs this. So you do need to record how > instances were created. Can you give a more specific example? > I agree that handling dynamic updates to the bindings document is less > well-motivated. It might be useful for a template editor. But a template > editor could probably just unapply the entire bindings document, modify it, > and reapply it. > > Rob > -- > "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for > they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures > every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11] >
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 16:12:42 UTC