Re: [Component Model]: Shadow DOM Subtree per element: One or Many?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <> wrote:
> 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<

Yes. This sounds like a good plan. If we come up with use cases, we
can reevaluate in the light of new ideas. Even if new use cases prove
compelling, starting with a single shadow is probably still a good
approach anyway.


> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Dominic Cooney <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson <> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:44, Dimitri Glazkov <> 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 06:56:20 UTC