- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 05:10:57 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17023 --- Comment #10 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> 2012-05-11 05:10:57 UTC --- It seems you guys gave me comment when I was writing the followings: :) My suggestions are: - For active InsertionPoints, attached ShadowRoots should not be used. - For inactive InsertionPoint, attached ShadowRoots should take effect. - It is okay to attach a ShadowRoot to either active or inactive InsertionPoints. - It is okay to move a InsertionPoint inside the ShadowRoot or outside the ShadowRoot. That might change its active/inactive status, but that should not get rid of its attached ShadowRoots. (In reply to comment #9) > I think we should not throw an exception, because we still have to deal with > this case anyway: > > <content id="a"> > <div id="b"> > <script> > var a = document.querySelector('#a'); > var b = document.querySelector('#b'); > var t = new ShadowRoot(a); > var u = new ShadowRoot(b); > a.parentNode.removeChild(a); > u.appendChild(a); > </script> > > ie the ShadowRoot could be attached when the insertion point is inactive, and > the insertion point could become active later. -- 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 Friday, 11 May 2012 05:11:00 UTC