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

Re: ::Parts of cats and hats everywhere, slashed by shadow

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:58:52 -0800
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <11EA7052-B578-428A-A637-411A19F135EE@apple.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>

On Feb 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> On 2/7/14 5:10 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> Not to belabor the point but I think the pushback reflects some membersí belief this should *not* be added later i.e. both Type 1 and Type 2 encapsulation should be supported.
> 
> OK.  Could we please step back for a second and define exactly what Type 2 would cover, in terms of CSS?  My understanding of Type 2 is that it doesn't try to protect against various convoluted things like redefining standard prototype objects or whatnot but tries to protect against exposing API to touch the shadow DOM directly, right?
> 
> If that understanding is correctly, where do we draw the boundary between these two?  .shadowRoot seems like Type 2 would rule it out. Overriding Node.appendChild with a function that leaks the thisobj and argument to the the page seems like something Type 2 is not aiming to protect against.  Agreed so far?

Generally yes. (We could have a form of Type 2 that implies a separate global object, which would protect against this but not against, for instance, calling exposed component methods with maliciously constructed arguments, but it's a judgment call whether that is a net benefit in the model.)

> 
> It seems to me that querySelector("foo ^ bar") lies somewhere between those two extremes.  Would Type 2 rule it out or not?

In my opinion yes, because it's trivially equivalent to .shadowRoot, especially if "^" is the only way to achieve styling, so there isn't even a convention against breaking the model.

> Actually clearly defining what Type 2 _means_ is a nontrivial exercise.  Much more so than Type 1 or Type 4... :(

I agree that defining it is potentially tricky since there are judgment calls involved. I expect it would not be very hard to spec and implement given a set of decisions about the various access points.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 23:59:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 7 February 2014 23:59:21 UTC