- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:58:47 -0700
- To: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
- Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, MarkM Miller <erights@google.com>
Also -- we can always try to start with just one subtree, and then enable multiple. Since the plumbing and the order specification are trivial, it's something we can easily add. :DG< On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:44, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> It would surely allow certain use cases to be covered that are not >>> covered today with form control elements. >>> >>> How about not throwing on new ShadowTree(element) and just append a >>> new shadow root after the existing ones? >> >> That would make the order "as instantiated", which is totally fine by >> me. It would be good to add a use case which describes the need for >> this. Anyone got a good idea? Don't want to reuse Adam's autocomplete >> one, since HTML already provides a solution. > > +1 to finding a use case. When I try to think of one, I usually end up > with: I would rather do this using composition. The only benefit of > multiple shadows over composition is that I don’t need to forward most > of the API to the primary part of the composition. > > One big question for me is: Do you expect multiple shadows to be > designed to work together, or come from multiple independent sources > (like different script libraries)? > >> :DG< >> >>> >>> -- >>> erik >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 02:59:11 UTC