Re: Showing <dialog> from HTML import

Filed: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28051

Ashley


On 18 February 2015 at 15:29, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:

> Can you file a spec bug?
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?comment=&blocked=20683&short_desc=%5Bimports%5D%3A%20&product=WebAppsWG&import=import%20Model
>
> :DG<
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com> wrote:
>
>> I filed crbug.com/458799 for Chrome recently since showing a <dialog>
>> defined in a HTML import did not work as I thought it should. I can't
>> compare to any other browsers since right now AFAIK Chrome is the only
>> browser shipping both HTML imports and <dialog>. There seemed to be some
>> confusion from the browser developers over what the spec says ought to
>> happen.
>>
>> It sounds like the current spec says that showing a dialog marks the
>> "node document" of the dialog as being blocked. I would imagine a <dialog>
>> in a HTML import has the invisible HTML import document as the node
>> document of the <dialog>. Therefore it never appears on-screen (in the main
>> document) when you call showModal(), but still throws if you try to open it
>> twice.
>>
>> It can be worked around with JS: the dialog element can be detached from
>> its current document and appended to the main document, and then
>> showModal() works as expected.
>>
>> I think the spec may need to be altered. I think it's an obvious use case
>> that a web component may want to show a dialog, and naturally that dialog
>> will be defined in one of the web component's HTML imports. As it stands
>> though the dialog will never appear unless the JS hack is used. I can also
>> foresee that a large codebase making use of lots of dialogs ends up with
>> loads of dialogs appended to the main document, instead of leaving them in
>> the components where they came from.
>>
>> Not sure how this would be specified though - perhaps the dialog should
>> be attached to the main document in showModal(), then re-inserted where it
>> came from in close()? Sounds like a bit of a hack in itself...
>>
>> Ashley
>>
>>
>