Re: [WICG/webcomponents] [scoped-registries] Finding a definition for disconnected elements (Issue #1040)

>  not changing the registry seems the most predictable

It seems most predictable to me to always use the registry of your root node, and this was the idea in the [proposal](https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/Scoped-Custom-Element-Registries.md#finding-a-custom-element-definition).

As far as I can tell, there hasn't been an explicit argument made about why to change this other than implementation feasibility. If I understand correctly, the case that requires more information than `getRootNode()` could provide is when the root doesn't have an explicit registry (e.g. it's an unconnected element). 

Perhaps we cam focus on that case and consider independently how it should behave such that it is feasible to implement and the behavior is acceptable.

It seems like we have these options for this case:
1. use the registry of the root to which the element was last connected
2. use the registry of the root in which the element was created
3. use no registry
4. use the global registry

Which of these would have implementation feasibility concerns? Only (1)?

From a behavior perspective, I think (1) makes most sense, but probably only (4) would be unacceptable.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/1040#issuecomment-2491538587
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <WICG/webcomponents/issues/1040/2491538587@github.com>