[Bug 18513] [Shadow]: Consider re-projecting children in nested shadow DOM subtrees

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18513

--- Comment #6 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> 2012-08-13 04:54:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
 > If C is matched by IPb and C is matched by IPa, is C rendered as child of:
> a) Ah
> b) A?
>
> As spec'd today, the answer is [Ah]

Can you clarify whether | is a sibling or child relationship? I am going to
assume it is a child. Are A and B elements or ShadowRoots? I assume that they
are *elements* because you mentioned C being rendered as a "child of … A" and
since ShadowRoots are themselves not rendered, A must be an element.

If those assumptions are right*, this question does not make sense to me for
two reasons:

First, whether C is matched by IPa or not is immaterial, since insertion points
match the children of host elements. C is not a child of [Ah], thus, it is not
matched by IPa.

Second, it is not possible for C to rendered as a child of [Ah] since [Ah] has
Shadow DOM with a top-level element A, hence the only thing rendered as a child
of [Ah] will be A.

My conclusion is that if C is rendered, it is rendered as the child of A.
Whether it is rendered depends on whether IPa also matches IPb (you mentioned
it matches C – whether it matches IPb in addition to that.)

> , which is a bit weird, since it seems
> logically like it should follow the same rendering rules as any other children
> of [Ah]

I think this is confusing distribution and rendering. As far as I can see the
rules for distribution and rendering are being applied consistently.

* This doesn’t make sense to me under other plausible assumptions, so if I got
the assumptions wrong, help me out here.

-- 
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 04:54:16 UTC