[Bug 26033] Make distribution algorithm forward compatible with <shadow> as function call.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26033

Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hayato@chromium.org

--- Comment #1 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to William Chen from comment #0)
> Opening this bug to continue
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24288#c2
> 
> Bug 24288 reverted <shadow> as a function call behavior due to an
> implementation difficulty in blink and it looks like the intent was to
> remove the behavior until a reasonable implementation is found.

Correct.

We'd like to implement this feature, <shadow> as a function call.
I have a plan to resume this work in the near future.

> 
> The spec change in bug 24288 neuters children of the <shadow> element to
> preserve its use for the future, but it should also prevent distribution of
> nodes into content insertion points of older shadow trees if we want to be
> able to reintroduce <shadow> as a function call. Right now, the behavior is
> to distribute 'left over' nodes in the distribution pool.

I don't think this does matter in practice.

If there is no <shadow> insertion point in the younger shadow tree, 
it doesn't matter how nodes are distributed into content insertion points in
the older shadow root because the nodes in the older shadow tree doesn't
participate in the composed tree at all.

I think we can see the difference only via some APIs such as
getDistributedNodes(), getDestinationInsertionPoints().


> 
> This can be done by bringing back "Let POOL be an empty ordered list."
> 
> in
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/
> 61745e0b40c8d609ad1070e7babc7915fca637ea
> 
> I bring this up because it seems like the intent was to eventually
> reintroduce <shadow> as a function call and it looks like people are
> interested in this feature.

I am not saying we shouldn't bring that back.
I am just curious how you could find this minor(?) issue. :)

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

Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 06:36:44 UTC