W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:52:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jcJtLq9kDKHshVQkMfcc3dxFC74VRbZ9FKQz_eGBHsg3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Cc: "Edward O&amp,#39 Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Feb 4, 2014 2:46 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dimitri,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> >> As indicated by Tab at the F2F, Blink currently implements the cat/hat
> >> combinators proposed by yours truly [3].
> >>
> >> FWIW, I don't fully understand why it would be so terrible to leave
> >> cat and hat alone (in talking with Tab, there's only a weak precedent
> >> for preferring pseudo element functions to combinators with
> >> ::content), but I am okay with renaming them. Ultimately, it's this
> >> WG's shed, I just store my bike there.
> >
> > I don't think host documents should be able to select arbitrary elements
> > in the shadow DOM. A much better model, which IIRC was in one of your
> > documents at one point, is to let the component author explicitly export
> > certain shadow elements as pseudos. Something like:
> >
> > # In shadow tree
> >
> >    <div pseudo=foo>...</div>
> >
> > # in CSS, if that shadow tree is attached to el with id bar
> >
> >    #bar::pseudo(foo) { ... }
> >
> > In this model, the component author is only signing up for a contract
> > for which they know the terms.
> >
>
> +1 to this. Sorry I missed why this model was rejected; is there a
pointer to the discussion that resolved to not move forward with this
approach?
>
I think the link you want begins at link #3 in the root of the thread

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0454.html


> > Also, given the several open threads on public-webapps about various
> > foundational components issues, I think it would be a mistake to ship an
> > implementation without either prefixing it or putting it behind a
> > disabled-by-default runtime flag. That said, I'm sure you guys
> > understand Blink's policy for exposing features to the Web better than I
> > do.
>
>
> If you want to ship it once, wait for consensus. If you want to ship it
now, be ready to change it. Trying to cattle-prod some kind of consensus
with 'speak now or forever hold your peace' language is a rather
off-putting way to try and make progress.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 19:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC