[Bug 26365] [Shadow]: Need an equivalent definition of 'in a Document' for shadow trees

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26365

--- Comment #9 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #6)
> > That should be *no impact*, I hope.
> 
> This isn't something to hope; this is something to audit in the specs; comes
> with changing the fundamental conceptual model...
> 
> That said, one of the very first hits on "in a Document" in HTML is in
> "reset the form owner", and in that case it's not clear to me that things
> inside a shadow DOM should be considered "in a document".
> 
> So it does sound like shadow DOM should not be "in a document" by default
> but we need a new term X for "light DOM nodes are X if in a document, shadow
> DOM nodes are X if shadow host is X" that other specs then need to be
> adjusted to use.  That means filing spec bugs on those specs.


Agreed on that we should proceed in a careful way. We must audit the usage of
'in a Document' in specs, right?
That might not be an easy task. However, I am sure we can agree that we should
be careful here.


I think we have to distinguish the following cases: 

1. A node is *In a Document*.

2. A node is *in a composed tree whose root is a Document.

3. A node is *In a Document*, but not in a composed tree whose root is a
Document.
   (That means there is a state where node is in *1*, but not in *2*, such as a
node which is a child of a shadow host, but it's not distributed.)


We might want to have a new TERM x to represents the state of 2 (and 3?).

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

Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 04:40:34 UTC