- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:51:20 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22344
--- Comment #34 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to Steve Orvell from comment #33)
> > That means case A is similar to "<shadow><content giveMeRemainingNodesAtLast>
> > </content></shadow>".
>
> I would prefer not to do that and suggest instead that <shadow></shadow>
> should be equivalent to <shadow><content></content></shadow>.
>
> In the interest of 'keeping it simple', we should avoid inventing a new
> priority for <content> that's only applicable in this case.
Okay, but I prefer "<shadow><content
giveMeRemainingNodesAtLast></content></shadow>" for the following reasons:
1. It doesn't break a backward compatibility and matches the behavior of old
<shadow> element.
2. I'm afraid that consuming all nodes by a hidden <content> element is *too*
implicit and is not flexible for users. For example, the following case doesn't
work and the result might be against user's intention:
#shadow-root
<content id=a select=".header"></content>
<shadow id=b></shadow>
<content id=c select=".footer"></content>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 00:51:22 UTC