[Bug 17023] [Shadow]: Can an InsertionPoint be a shadow host?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17023

--- Comment #13 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> 2012-05-11 05:22:25 UTC ---
Yes, 

> - For active InsertionPoints, attached ShadowRoots should not be used.

'Should' might be confusing, the correct sentence is:

For active InsertionPoints, distributed nodes (if exist) are rendered. The
InsertionPoint element itself is not rendered. As a result, its attached shadow
roots are not used.


(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> The first bullet:
> > For active InsertionPoints, attached ShadowRoots should not be used.
> means:
>   the ShadowRoot will not be rendered, 
>   and the distribution algorithm for InsertionPoints will run,
> right?
> 
> If so, I think these suggestions make sense.

-- 
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 05:22:29 UTC