- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 03:20:46 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887 --- Comment #43 from Steve Orvell <sorvell@chromium.org> --- Let's go back to this case in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887#c39 and review the counter-argument. <content select=".header"></content> <content select=".content"></content> > Why? Add a listener to the shadow host? You can easily filter out events in the > listener, for example by using the content.getDistributedNodes(). > Or you can add listeners to the distributed nodes themselves. Neither option is acceptable. If a listener is added to the shadowRoot, then each handler must start at event.target and walk up the tree checking if the element is in the specific content's list of distributed nodes. This has a non-trivial cost in code and performance. Alternatively, if handlers are attached to the distributed nodes, there's no good way today for the developer to respond to nodes that are added/removed. You can watch for mutations on the host's childList, but you will not see elements that are re-projected this way. At this point, I don't see an alternative to requiring all insertion points to be in the event path. If we don't include insertion points, we run into the problems listed above. If we include only the last insertion point, we have composition fail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 03:20:48 UTC