W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: The Unwanted Effect of XBL Shadow DOM Elements on Layout

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:51:36 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimzHFhZGWitX1SL62As-uctF6Y1sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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".

~TJ
Received 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