- 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