- From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:05:39 +0900
- To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- Cc: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>, Matthew McNulty <mmcnulty@google.com>, Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CAHnmYQ9+xtGoZDn=Rb4-593GUT_PNGjH-kDODJMyiZySv_gegA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote: > For the record I'm opposed to what you are proposoing. I don't like that > you lose the symmetry between innerHTML and outerHTML. > Sorry for replying to such a cold thread. Could you elaborate on what symmetry is being broken here? outerHTML is innerHTML with a prefix and a suffix. In this proposal the prefix includes <shadow-root>. What problems are likely to result from that? Dominic > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: > >> I made an attempt to describe how these things can be non-lossy here: >> https://gist.github.com/sjmiles/5358120 >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: >> >>> input/video would have intrinsic Shadow DOM, so it would not ever be >>> part of outerHTML. >>> >>> I don't have a precise way to differentiate intrinsic Shadow DOM from >>> non-intrinsic Shadow DOM, but my rule of thumb is this: 'node.outerHTML' >>> should produce markup that parses back into 'node' (assuming all >>> dependencies exist). >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>wrote: >>> >>>> Once again, how would this work for input/video? >>>> >>>> Are you suggesting that `createShadowRoot` behaves different than when >>>> you create the shadow root using markup? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we all agree that node.innerHTML should not reveal node's >>>>> ShadowDOM, ever. >>>>> >>>>> What I am arguing is that, if we have <shadow-root> element that you >>>>> can use to install shadow DOM into an arbitrary node, like this: >>>>> >>>>> <div> >>>>> <shadow-root> >>>>> Decoration --> <content></content> <-- Decoration >>>>> <shadow-root> >>>>> Light DOM >>>>> </div> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then, as we agree, innerHTML is >>>>> >>>>> LightDOM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> but outerHTML would be >>>>> >>>>> <div> >>>>> <shadow-root> >>>>> Decoration --> <content></content> <-- Decoration >>>>> <shadow-root> >>>>> Light DOM >>>>> </div> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm suggesting this outerHTML only for 'non-intrinsic' shadow DOM, by >>>>> which I mean Shadow DOM that would never exist on a node unless you hadn't >>>>> specifically put it there (as opposed to Shadow DOM intrinsic to a >>>>> particular element type). >>>>> >>>>> With this inner/outer rule, all serialization cases I can think of >>>>> work in a sane fashion, no lossiness. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something but we clearly don't want to include >>>>>> <shadowroot> in the general innerHTML getter case. If I implement >>>>>> input[type=range] using custom elements + shadow DOM I don't want innerHTML >>>>>> to show the internal guts. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't see any reason why my document markup for some div should >>>>>>> not be serializable back to how I wrote it via innerHTML. That seems just >>>>>>> plain bad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope you can take a look at what I'm saying about outerHTML. I >>>>>>> believe at least the concept there solves all cases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2013 1:24 PM, "Scott Miles" <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > So, what you quoted are thoughts I already deprecated mysefl in >>>>>>>> this thread. :) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > If you read a bit further, see that I realized that >>>>>>>> <shadow-root> is really part of the 'outer html' of the node and not the >>>>>>>> inner html. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yeah sorry, connectivity issue prevented me from seeing those until >>>>>>>> after i sent i guess. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >> I think that is actually a feature, not a detriment and easily >>>>>>>> explainable. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > What is actually a feature? You mean that the shadow root is >>>>>>>> invisible to innerHTML? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Yes, that's true. But without some special handling of Shadow DOM >>>>>>>> you get into trouble when you start using innerHTML to serialize DOM into >>>>>>>> HTML and transfer content from A to B. Or even from A back to itself. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think Dimiti's implication iii is actually intuitive - that is >>>>>>>> what I am saying... I do think that round-tripping via innerHTML would be >>>>>>>> lossy of declarative markup used to create the instances inside the >>>>>>>> shadow... to get that it feels like you'd need something else which I think >>>>>>>> he also provided/mentioned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe I'm alone on this, but it's just sort of how I expected it to >>>>>>>> work all along... Already, roundtripping can differ from the original >>>>>>>> source, If you aren't careful this can bite you in the hind-quarters but it >>>>>>>> is actually sensible. Maybe I need to think about this a little deeper, >>>>>>>> but I see nothing at this stage to make me think that the proposal and >>>>>>>> implications are problematic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> erik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> erik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > erik > > > -- <http://goto.google.com/dc-email-sla>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 03:06:09 UTC