- 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