[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

William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |wchen@mozilla.com

--- Comment #22 from William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com> ---
It may also be useful to define a new type of parent/child relation for nodes
in composed trees and tree of trees. The terms "parent", "child", "ancestor"
and "descendant" may not make sense if we change things from "in document" to
"in composed tree rooted at document" or "in tree of trees rooted at document".

Just as an example, one of the steps in the "reset the form owner" algorithm
[1] involves finding "the nearest such ancestor form element". If we wanted to
allow form-associated-element to associate with forms outside the shadow tree,
then the current algorithm isn't sufficient because the parent chain terminates
at the shadow root and "nearest ancestor" may not be the node you want.

For "in document" and "in shadow tree", using the current terminology is
probably fine.

For "in composed tree" we probably need new terms that describe a parent/child
relation between shadow host/shadow root and parent of insertion points/nodes
distributed into insertion points. Nodes that are distributed but don't match
an insertion point should probably have no parent in this relation.

For "in tree of trees" we would probably also need terms to describe
parent/child relation between shadow host/shadow root, but ignore insertion
points and distribution.

[1] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/forms.html#reset-the-form-owner

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

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 01:25:15 UTC