On Apr 10, 2013 1:24 PM, "Scott Miles" <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>
> So, what you quoted are thoughts I already deprecated mysefl in this
thread. :)
>
> If you read a bit further, see that I realized that <shadow-root> is
really part of the 'outer html' of the node and not the inner html.
>
Yeah sorry, connectivity issue prevented me from seeing those until after i
sent i guess.
> >> I think that is actually a feature, not a detriment and easily
explainable.
>
> What is actually a feature? You mean that the shadow root is invisible to
innerHTML?
>
Yes.
> Yes, that's true. But without some special handling of Shadow DOM you get
into trouble when you start using innerHTML to serialize DOM into HTML and
transfer content from A to B. Or even from A back to itself.
>
I think Dimiti's implication iii is actually intuitive - that is what I am
saying... I do think that round-tripping via innerHTML would be lossy of
declarative markup used to create the instances inside the shadow... to get
that it feels like you'd need something else which I think he also
provided/mentioned.
Maybe I'm alone on this, but it's just sort of how I expected it to work
all along... Already, roundtripping can differ from the original source, If
you aren't careful this can bite you in the hind-quarters but it is
actually sensible. Maybe I need to think about this a little deeper, but I
see nothing at this stage to make me think that the proposal and
implications are problematic.