- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:13:54 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27222 --- Comment #7 from Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #6) > (In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #5) > > I'm not a fan of using 'event path' here. An event path should not be > > abused. > No abusing here. Just being consistent how events propagate and you look > for the first title attribute in the propagation path starting from the event > target. > > > Using the ancestor chain in the composed tree should be enough, > > shouldn't it? > Well once the event propagation is fixed, event path and ancestor chain are > effectively the same. > > I don't see reason to special case <content> or <shadow>. Unless bug 23887 resolves not to include SR/IP into the event path, and it looks like the current proposal is to include them, so the two paths will be different. I actually prefer not to include them and make the two same at least for Level 1, but experts are already there, I'll let the bug to discuss that. And I agree with Hayato to prefer composed tree over event path. I do not see any reasons to make attributes propagation complicated by including SR/IP. Rendering[1] and inheritance[2] use the composed trees, I think attributes should follow them. [1] http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#composed-trees [2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-scoping/#inheritance -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 01:13:56 UTC