Re: Fwd: XBL2: First Thoughts and Use Cases

Boris, Tab, thank you for clarification.
I was confusing template and non-template (content) part of the shadow tree..
For template, it makes sense to let them dead and freeze the structure.
--
morrita

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Hajime Morita <morrita@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi Tab,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sure.  I'm proposing that templates be completely dead.  I'm also proposing
>>>> that, for a first cut, shadow trees be completely dead (in the "will throw
>>>> exception if you try to add or remove nodes" sense), unless we can figure
>>>> out how to efficiently implement live shadow trees.
>> Please let me clarify - which can be done without live-ness?
>>
>> - 1. Changing the tree structure (adding/removing the child)
>> - 2. Changing the attributes of the node (via setAttribute() or some
>> property access)
>> - 3. Changing the style directly (node.style property)
>> - 4. Changing the style declaratively (via modifying stylesheet)
>>
>> It looks 4 is apparently OK, 3 might be OK, 1 and 2 is not allowed.
>> Is this right?
>>
>> Note that editing text on <input> will cause 2 happen and
>> other form related changes as well.
>
> Like Boris said, #1 is the only problem.  We're only trying to make it
> so that the metadata we copy out of the template can be shared (the
> list of output ports and the list of attribute forwards, I think), and
> to do that we just need to freeze the structure of the DOM.
>
> If the output port is done as an element that you can see in the
> shadow DOM, then we need to freeze the selector it uses to match and
> any other switches expressed as attributes on it.
>
> ~TJ
>
> ~TJ
>



-- 
morrita

Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 00:52:50 UTC