- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 03:07:38 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26033 --- Comment #8 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> --- Thank you. My understanding is your proposal sounds to get a forward compatibility by breaking the feature which are currently used. I don't find any point why your proposal, plan B (See bellow), is better than plan A, I am planning. Plan A is no worse than Plan B, isn't it? Plan A: 1. Bringing back <shadow> as function. As long as <shadow> elements don't have child elements, there will be no compatibility issue. Plan B: 1. Introduce the proposed change before bringing back <shadow> as function. As a result, we'll get a forward compatibility, but will lose the important feature which are currently used. That would be hard to accept. 2. Then, bringing back <shadow> as function later. (In reply to William Chen from comment #7) > (In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #6) > > Your proposal can't achieve that, can that? > > Shadow as function call can achieve what you are trying to do in your > particular example by placing a content insertion point as a child of the > shadow element. > > My proposal is a minimal change to ensure that the spec is forwards > compatible with shadow as function call semantics. If you bring back the > behavior, then that's even better. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 03:07:40 UTC