Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Alternative proposal for closed shadow DOM (#499)

I don't really want to get in between you two, but I want to point out that at least as of yesterday (haven't read through the latest replies) there was a big fallacy in this thread, which was that `closed` prevents the application developer from modifying the shadow tree.

This is never true. There is no DRM for JavaScript. Any JavaScript code that you deploy in your webapp, you have complete control over. You can modify it as you see fit, for example, by changing all occurrences of the string "closed" to "open".

Yes, this can be inconvenient. Yes, it means that certain libraries will exist which you might not be able to use out of the box without changing their source code first. That's fine: there are a lot of things a library developer can do to make their library less than usable, such as using an illiberal license, or naming their public APIs with gibberish, or obfuscating their source code. Such libraries will get less uptake by people who care about such things. That's OK.

The application developer is never locked out of control of their webapp by the existence of features in the browser, like `WeakMap`s or closed shadow DOM, that give encapsulation. The application developer can always change the code that uses those features to simply not use them.

---
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/499#issuecomment-219105608