Re: [whatwg/dom] Declarative Shadow DOM (#831)

> > Yes, that part definitely needs to be spec'ed out. Recall that our position has been that people should be always using closed shadow roots, not open shadow roots. Without this part being figured out, all basis and arguments to have declarative shadow roots is basically moot.
> 
> Thanks for the comments, @rniwa. In the interest of trying to move this feature forward, I'd like to get a few clarifications:
> 
> * While we disagree about the benefits and issues associated with streaming support here, I think we've reached somewhat of a consensus that streaming support can be added later, with something like `<template shadowroot=open streaming>`.

I'm not sure. I certainly don't want to support two different variants of this feature.

> * As @caridy points out, we've discussed closed shadow root support in the [explainer](https://github.com/mfreed7/declarative-shadow-dom/blob/master/README.md#existing-declarative-shadow-roots) and in [Issue 871](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/871). You are saying that without resolving [Issue 871](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/871), you cannot support this declarative Shadow DOM proposal. I understand your concern, and I'd like to solve it. But is the inverse of your statement true? I.e. if we resolve [Issue 871](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/871), could you then support declarative Shadow DOM?

In my view, https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/871 is the biggest blocker. I can't definitively say we'd support this proposal yet because I'd like to confirm the performance benefit claims made in the favor of this feature on our end. I'd try to do that sometime soon.

> I've just [proposed a fix for Issue 871](https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/871#issuecomment-672082936), which I will commit to implementing in Chromium immediately, if agreed upon. Please take a look there, and let's get that issue resolved. And then I'm hoping you'll be supportive of this proposal.

I have to think through the use cases and circle back with my colleagues but on surface that does look like a reasonable solution to me, and it does indeed remove the biggest blocker of this proposal in my view. Again, I'd like to confirm the performance benefit claims if there is any on my end and need to circle back with some of my colleagues who are more skeptical of this feature in general to definitely say whether can support this feature or not.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/831#issuecomment-672330983