- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:07:20 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22344 --- Comment #40 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> --- I understand. Thank you! But I don't think the fact of "we don't have a leftover attribute for a content element yet" is a blocking issue for *my* <shadow>. To rescue every cases, suppose that we will implement 'leftover (tentative name)' attribute for a <content> element eventually. We have several choices how we proceed in what orders: Plan A) 1. Make '<shadow></shadow>' act like '<shadow><content leftover></content></shadow>'. 2. Support a 'leftover' attribute for a <content> element. Plan B) 1. Make '<shadow></shadow>' act like '<shadow><content></content></shadow>'. 2. Support a 'leftover' attribute for a <content> element. 3. Make '<shadow></shadow>' act like '<shadow><content leftover></content></shadow>'. Plan C) 1. Make '<shadow></shadow>' act like '<shadow><content></content></shadow>'. 2. Support a 'leftover' attribute for a <content> element. 3. That's all. (We won't make <shadow></shadow> act like <shadow><content leftover></content></shadow>). I am proposing Plan A, rather than Plan B or Plan C. In other words, I think it's okay that we have some amount of time between A-1 and A-2. Does it sound reasonable? I am not sure which plan is best for us. Do you prefer Plan B, Plan C, or any other plan? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 07:07:22 UTC