[Bug 27222] [Shadow]: "title" attribute should inherit in shadow DOM

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27222

--- Comment #12 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #11)
> (In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #9)
> > 
> > > I don't see reason to special case <content> or <shadow>.
> > 
> > The ordinal intended usage of shadow roots and insertion points are for
> > composition. Using them beyond the original role sounds bad unless there is
> > a strong reasonable demand from developers.
> 
> Well, why they are then in the event path at all?

A good question actually. My comment #9 in bug 23887,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887#c9, explains my feeling
about the current event path spec well.


The history is:

  - An event path had already included insertion points when I became an spec
editor. That's an era of we don't have a concept of a composed tree.
  - When I introduced the composed tree into the spec so that we can make
things be clearly defined, it revealed this kind of *darkness* in the spec - 
The difference between the event path and an ancestor chain in the composed
tree.



I am sure that we have the similar concern about the *inconsistency* between:

A) The current event path, which includes insertion points
B) What we are trying to use for attribute inheritance

, right?


My current feeling is:
- To prevent the darkness of A from spreading is more important than making B
be consistent with the darkness of A.

, given that we've not heard a strong demand for insertion points to have an
effect on attribute inheritance.


This darkness is likely to cause a lot of discussion as you know. I am afraid
that that might be a signal of bad design.

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

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 17:17:18 UTC