- From: Mason Freed <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:19:50 -0800
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/892/review/596925143@github.com>
@mfreed7 commented on this pull request. > @@ -5828,6 +5855,11 @@ dictionary ShadowRootInit { required ShadowRootMode mode; boolean delegatesFocus = false; }; + +dictionary GetInnerHTMLOptions { + boolean includeShadowRoots = true; + sequence<ShadowRoot> closedRoots; Sorry - can you link me to the spec for `getComposedInnerHTML`? I can't seem to find that one. Perhaps you're just referring to the [unimplemented 2018 proposal](https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/79#issuecomment-432974389) for `getComposedRange`? This seems different from that. The word "composed" I'd even object to here. We're just trying to return the full HTML for a node, including shadow content. Since we can't break the web by starting to do that with `innerHTML`, we need a new API. The closest thing to the existing `innerHTML` seems to be `getInnerHTML()` which allows the introduction of parameters, and is easily understandable by developers. Renaming this to `getComposedInnerHTML` will make everyone go look up "composed" to try to see if this'll just return them the HTML, which it will. So we make it longer to type, and more confusing to developers. Can you help me understand what we gain in the bargain? Thanks for your comments on https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5465/files. I've put some replies there. -- 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/pull/892#discussion_r581493474
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 00:20:02 UTC