On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/7/11 8:43 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> We have also run into this problem in our discussion of >> XBL2/Component use-cases, and in fact already use essentially this >> concept in our Component implementation - the root of a shadow tree is >> implemented as an element, but it doesn't appear in the box tree. > > That's quite different from the problem Lachlan is talking about. What > you're saying is that the root of the shadow tree does not appear in the > final flattened tree at all, which is true. What Lachlan wants is things > that appear in the final flattened tree but do not generate boxes of their > own; their children's boxes are just placed in their parent instead. For our own implementation purposes, they are equivalent (I think) - the shadow root is treated as part of the document, in that the shadow nodes see it as an ancestor, but it's transparent when constructing the render tree. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 7 April 2011 20:31:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:50 UTC