On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/7/11 1:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > Does the shadow root have the bound element as the parent? > > If not, then this doesn't sound equivalent. Yes, for some definition of "parent". ~TJReceived on Thursday, 7 April 2011 23:52:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT