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

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

--- Comment #4 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to William Chen from comment #3)
> (In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #2)
> > If we bring "Let POOL be an empty ordered list" back to the spec, we'll get
> > a forward compatibility for the future, however, we'll introduce the
> > backward incompatibility from the current behavior.
> 
> That seems fine to me considering the spec is an editors draft right now.

IMHO, I couldn't think in such a way because we always recommend users to refer
to the latest Editor's Draft.

In fact, the next Working Draft will have a big obsolete warning message.
https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/publish/shadow/WD-shadow-dom-20140612/

We should consider the current Editor's draft as a *Living Standard*.
We should judge on a case-by-case bases, considering actual usage and it's
impact.

In this particular case, I think sooner is better. We might want to bring ""Let
POOL be an empty ordered list." back.

> 
> > In either case, this doesn't affect the composed tree. Therefore, I think
> > this is a minor issue.
> 
> This does affect the composed tree because I can put a <shadow> insertion
> point in the youngest shadow tree. The spec change only neutered children of
> the <shadow> element, it doesn't neuter the <shadow> element itself which
> means the older shadow tree will be projected into it. Depending on how we
> distribute nodes into the insertion points of the older shadow tree,
> different nodes will appear in the composed tree.

I'm afraid that I couldn't figure out what this mean. Could you give us the
concrete example so that every one can know the impact of the change?

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

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 02:03:09 UTC