- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:23:40 -0800
- To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 12/14/10 11:16 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > This is interesting. Can you give an example? I am wondering if you > and Tab are talking about the same thing. What sorts of problems? The issues we've run into is that the shadow DOM tree can get mutated, which makes the actual DOM get out of sync with the data structures that represent insertion points (what I think XBL2 calls output ports) and the like). After this, adding normal DOM children to the bound element at best puts them in the wrong place in the shadow DOM; at worst we've had exploitable crash issues we had to fix. Now if the shadow DOM can only be mutated by the binding itself, then it's possible to just avoid those problems in the binding script or restrict the things that script can do. But if the shadow DOM is exposed to the page the bound element is in, then the implementation needs to handle arbitrary mutations _somehow_, since you can't rely on things outside the binding playing nice with the binding. Or, of course, restrict what _that_ script can do with the shadow DOM, but that has more potential for weird breakage if the binding changes out from under the scripts that are trying to poke at it. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 19:24:17 UTC