W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:01:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky1-H25L3QEyz27ytdjV-Y8GcvfdVGwdW6M1PLftyupD2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:
> Splitting this up into two different things is great.

The specific meaning of "splitting up" is where the things get
interesting. As far as I understand Hixie's idea, the component (which
exposes API) and the binding (which supplies shadow tree) aren't
coupled, which means they can share no internal state. For example,
you can't close over a set of event listeners that interact with
shadow DOM in a component method, because the listeners are applied
separately. I don't think that's workable.

It seems to me that  we should have a way to create a shadow DOM
subtree inside of the component -- component's own tree (aka element
behavior attachment).

Then, there could be a separate method to decorate a component with
one additional shadow tree using CSS (aka decorator behavior
attachment).

The component model is explicitly interested in the former, not the latter.

:DG<
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 17:02:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT