[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 #53 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> ---
Thanks for the list above, Hayato.

When considering these, one should also consider:
- a node A that's a child of an element that has a shadow tree that doesn't
have an insertion point for A.
- a node A that's a grandchild of an element that has a shadow tree that
doesn't have an insertion point for A.
- a node that's in a shadow tree of an element B that itself is a child of an
element with a shadow tree that doesn't have an insertion point for B.
- a node that is display:none.
- an orphan node.
- a node in a shadow tree of an orphan node.
- a node that is being rendered
- a node that is not being rendered but that is in the composed tree

In general, I think we want to have as few categories of elements here as
possible. In particular, I think "being rendered vs not being rendered", "in
the document deeply vs not", "in the document directly vs not", and "scoped to
the current subtree" are reasonable categories.

So it seems to me that for the above we should go as follows:

"In the document": 
  <link> (e.g. you don't want rel=import working from inside a shadow tree)

"Being rendered":
  <embed>
  <object>
  focusable
  <applet>

"Scoped to the current subtree":
  media controllers
  form control associations

"In the document deeply":
  <script>
  <command> exposure
  accesskey
  <dialog>
  autofocus
  <iframe>, <frame>
  window.length
  inertness of browsing context container
  <style>
  <video> autopause
  whether autofill is canceled

How does that sound?

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

Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 23:25:54 UTC