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

Re: [webcomponents]: Making Shadow DOM Subtrees Traversable

From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CABMdHiT-YxTcz8gbKveNqH=FyEb6q3urthyjwBwmNOmJcYvpRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
So the two camps in the this argument seem to be arguing largely
philosophical views.

It's clear that Mozilla has experienced pain via plugins having access
to browser internals.

I'm curious if jQuery or others have experienced feeling restricted
because apps are depending on internals by way of having access to
them via monkey-patching

It seems to me like if public-by-default was a design mistake on the
web, it'd be pretty clearly in evidence already. Is it?

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/26/13 3:56 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
>>
>> One more thought occurs to me: It is easier to add public shadows in a
>> subsequent revision of the spec than it is to take public shadows away.
>
>
> Yes, indeed.  That's one of the main reasons I'd like it to be the initial
> default...
>
> I would certainly be completely against shipping anything that does not
> provide private shadows at all, of course.
>
> -Boris
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 18:12:55 GMT

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