W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:28:07 +0100
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B366F074BED14884A10D82D7E5F57E9F@fb.com>


On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl (mailto:annevk@annevk.nl)> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com (mailto:dglazkov@google.com)> wrote:
> > > Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on
> > > ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not
> > > be a DocumentFragment?
> > 
> > No. all I'm saying that "we" made a conscious choice not to have
> > innerHTML on DocumentFragment and that therefore we should not
> > introduce it on ShadowRoot either (until we either revisit the
> > DocumentFragment decision or someone shows that decision is not
> > applicable to ShadowRoot somehow).
> 
> Ah, got it. Well... The innerHTML is necessary for ShadowRoot. It's
> not a matter of API taste or consistency. If you look at any shadow
> DOM code today (however experimental), you'll see most of it using
> innerHTML to populate the shadow tree.

FWIW, one of the the most common use of doc fragment implies inserting a div into it to be able to use the div's innerHTML. For example, in jQuery: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/manipulation.js#L452-L457

--tobie
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 21:28:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT