Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Should custom elements be adoptable if so, how? (#512)

> Where you talk about printing above I think you are confusing cloning and adoption.

I don't believe so. My understanding was Gecko creates a new document and clones all children into the new document, which necessarily involves adoption. More info welcome, of course.

> The adoptedCallback could also be an opt-in to prevent throwing/downgrade and retain identity of sorts, maybe. If that is feasible I think I would prefer going that route and then downgrade seems like the safest approach.

This is meant to be a fourth proposal? Can you expand on it in an equivalent amount of detail? How does this work?

> What is the built-in rationalization for noncompliant browsers? I did not understand that part.

I was referring to my above

> It also allows the non-compliant browsers to rationalize their behavior by saying that the default adoptedCallback equivalent for built-in elements does proto-swizzling, even if the spec does not mention that.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/512#issuecomment-226399439