Re: [w3c/webcomponents] [Shadow] How should various document internal references work when SVG is being used in shadow DOM (bugzilla: 27380) (#179)

OK, thanks a lot for the clarification. So I think it should be clearly communicated and stated that SVGs and shadow DOM don't work together nicely if implemented according to the current spec and that devs cannot rely on the implementations that currently do support this "against the spec". Even Anne van Kesteren thought that this feature should work according to the current spec if I interpret this comment correctly: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/179#issuecomment-198231619 - without a clear statement how should the majority of "normal devs" understand the current situation?

SVG 'use' elements are a *very* important part for SVGs, at least if you use SVG to programmatically create vector graphics. So if they don't actually work in shadow DOMs that is a huge problem for shadow doms, IMHO: Shadow doms are used for creating and encapsulating complex web components. If those components cannot use sophisticated vector graphics, then this is a blocker for many component developers (like us) and they won't be adopting shadow doms, which would be a pity because they would benefit the most from shadow doms. 

I understand that it may be difficult to _change_ the spec so that this will work formally, but I think that absolutely _needs_ to be done (and that's basically what this ticket is all about). It's almost as if you had decided not to support a rather basic feature like background colors or margins in shadow doms - people will choose to have background colors and margins over using shadow doms if that is the only way they can get background colors and margins to work. I say that if you want shadow dom to become widely adopted, this SVG use-case absolutely needs to be supported, whatever it takes.
Thank you!

-- 
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/179#issuecomment-321176058