- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:34:25 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18535 Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominicc@chromium.org --- Comment #2 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> 2012-08-13 03:34:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > Should element definitions (the <element> thingies) be scoped inside > of a shadow DOM subtree? > > ... > > This means that you will have to explicitly state which components you > want to use inside of each <element>, but also means that you can have > a whole set of internal components that aren't surfaced to the > document. The proposed solution might be workable for large, complex components that have a single instance on a page. However if there are going to be multiple instances of a component on a page, something that means each instance has its own copy of the element definitions sounds heavyweight. (In reply to comment #1) > Experience suggests that this kind of collision is easily worked > around by library authors, by a combination of simple prefixing and just > googling for names beforehand. I don't think we need to give it a technical > solution. Is it so easily worked around? What about the related problem of integrating two copies of different versions of the same script library in the same page? -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 03:34:26 UTC