[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 #40 from Olli Pettay <bugs@pettay.fi> ---
(In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #38) 
> It's not reasonable if we exclude only such an older shadow root, while
> including the shadow tree hosted by #c only for the reason that one is an
> older shadow tree and one is the youngest shadow tree. 
Why it is not reasonable?

> Both shadow trees are in the same category in a sense that neither
> contribute to the document-rooted composed tree at all.
Well, youngest tree does always contribute to the composed tree of rooted by
its host.
Older, not distributed to any shadow insertion points are different.

> 
> Basically, I think the distribution result shouldn't have any effect to 'in
> a document'-ness.
> 'In a document'-ness should be purely determined by the structure of the
> tree of trees.

'in a document' -ness doesn't affect to the distribution.
Perhaps I should rephrase a bit. It is not only about the in-a-document, but
about the composed tree rooted to a host
(and if that host is in document, that composed tree is in a composed tree
which has document as root.).


> A). Focusing a *static* structure of a tree of trees.
> B). Focusing a dynamic structure. That's the document-rooted composed tree, which is the result of the distribution algorithm 
>     and the composition algorithm.

> I think you have been focusing on B, but I'd like to focus on A here.
> B will be likely to cause an inconsistency and make things complex. Unless we can find a serious issue in A, I'd like to go for 
> A here.
Yeah, I'm thinking about B) and how event handling and such behave in the whole
setup.


However, I think I could live with A too. I'm certainly not strongly against it
:)
But let me think this a bit, like this evening.

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

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 15:13:51 UTC