- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 02:20:04 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22080
Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dominicc@chromium.org
--- Comment #3 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> ---
The good thing about adding something that returns the ShadowRoot is that it is
easy to write:
if (in document) {
behave
} else if (in shadow) {
misbehave
} ...
But it makes it harder to write "do something to my root node"; instead of
elem.treeScope.party();
it is
(elem.containingShadow || elem.document).party();
I think having the shadow root accessor is better because it is very easy to
explain. Otherwise we'll have to put this pop quiz on cereal packets:
What does elem.treeScope return when...
...elem is not in the tree? (null)
...elem is in light DOM? (document)
...elem is in template content? (template document, I guess?)
...elem is in shadow DOM? (Shadow Root)
...elem is in a document fragment? (???)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:20:09 UTC