[Bug 22344] [Shadow]: Distribute into <shadow>, project into older shadow root

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22344

--- Comment #29 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #28)
> (In reply to Steve Orvell from comment #27)
> > I propose we make:
> > 
> >     <shadow></shadow>
> > 
> > act like this:
> > 
> >     <shadow><content></content></shadow>
> > 
> > Then this change is backwards compatible, and we avoid an extra node in this
> > very common case.
> 
> Yeah, I once thought that, but I gave up that idea at early stage since it's
> just like a syntax sugar with a implicit rule.
> 
> I don't have strong opinion for that, but that makes the spec complicated. I
> thought explicit is better than implicit.

I am aware that migration is painful. I've experienced that when landing the
patch in blink. :)
But I still prefer 'explicitly specifying parameters to superclass constructor
call'.

I am happy to discuss which is better. I could be convinced.


> 
> 
> > 
> > If the author really does not want to distribute elements to a <shadow>, the
> > author would make sure to select them before the <shadow>. This would most
> > likely happen naturally.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 04:00:37 UTC