Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Generic programs can't reliably use/manipulate documents via the DOM (#640)

> * browser extensions (specifically [WebExtensions](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions))
>   - [Vimium](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vimium/dbepggeogbaibhgnhhndojpepiihcmeb?hl=en) for Chrome is a solid example that closed DOMs hurt

What's exposed to browser extensions is up to each UA vendor. So each browser vendor can totally expose a new API that forces all shadow roots to be open, for example.

> * bookmarklets (ie. bookmarks with `javascript:` URIs)
> * in-browser testing frameworks
>   - e.g. [Selenium](http://www.seleniumhq.org/) WebDriver

I could imagine that scripts injected by WebDriver should have access to closed shadow roots. That work could be spec'ed in WebDriver.

> * generic libraries (e.g. for jQuery)

Why would generic library need to access things inside a closed shadow tree?

> * programs using a spec.-compliant DOM API outside of a browser.
>   - [PhantomJS](http://phantomjs.org/) programs will suffer from this if/when it is updated to use a newer WebKit
>   - Programs using a node.js library (eg. [jsdom](https://www.npmjs.com/package/jsdom)) which meets the spec. will struggle similarly

How could closed shadow trees cause problems for PhantomJS? Why are nodes.js and PhantomJS special with regards to closed shadow trees?

> * any other accessibility, testing or automation framework that uses the DOM as its interface to the document.

Saying that some libraries and frameworks may have an issue because they need to access nodes in a closed shadow tree is a bit tautological. We need a refutable statement. Otherwise, we can keep going around in circles based on each person's opinion.

-- 
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/640#issuecomment-300335406