- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:01:09 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 6/30/11 5:45 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >> There's a very interesting distinction here. You don't "attach" >> components to DOM elements. DOM elements _are_ components. The only >> way to make a component is by sub-classing it from an existing >> element. In this case, there is no distinction between native and >> non-native implementations. If I sub-class from HTMLTextareaElement, I >> can either reuse or override its shadow DOM. > > Back up. > > In this particular case, there may well be behavior attached to the textarea > that makes assumptions about the shadow DOM's structure. This seems like a > general statement about components. > > So if you override a shadow DOM, you better override the behavior too, > right? Ouch. This one is tricky. I now see it. We can't really expect the author to design to this level of decoupling. > > If you reuse the shadow DOM, you either don't get access to it from your > component, or the old behavior still needs to be unhooked (since you can now > violate its invariants). > > > Does that match your mental model? Or are we talking about totally > different things somehow? No, you've highlighted a real flaw in my reply there. > > -Boris > >
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 22:01:38 UTC