- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:12:05 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887 --- Comment #153 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> --- (In reply to Koji Ishii from comment #152) > (In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #150) > > (In reply to Koji Ishii from comment #148) > > > Sorry, I simplified the test case too much. The reproducible case is: > > > > > > A > > > SR > > > SIP > > > B > > > > > > In this tree, B's destination insertion point is not empty, but B is not > > > distributed. When an event fired on B: > > > Current: B, SIP, SR, A, Document, Window > > > Proposed: B > > > > Wait, what is the destination insertion point for B in this case? And why? > > > > The spec says > > "Each node that is not an insertion point has an ordered list, called > > destination insertion points, which consists of insertion points to where > > the node is distributed" > > So how can B's destination insertion point list be non-empty but B is not > > distributed. > > That seems to contradict with the definition of 'destination insertion > > points'. > > > > Or do I misunderstand something here? > > I agree it's weird. I had to re-read the spec when investigating this issue, > but the SIP above meets the criteria defined in "3.3 Shadow Insertion Points" > http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#h-shadow-insertion-points > > I opened bug 28031 for this. I'm ok either way, just want it to be > interoperable. I'm afraid that you didn't understand what Olli pointed out. > > > In this tree, B's destination insertion point is not empty, but B is not > > > distributed. When an event fired on B: I don't understand what this sentence mean... "node is not distributed" should mean "node's destination insertion is empty". That's the spec's intention. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 02:12:07 UTC