I don't see any reason why my document markup for some div should not be
serializable back to how I wrote it via innerHTML. That seems just plain
bad.
I hope you can take a look at what I'm saying about outerHTML. I believe at
least the concept there solves all cases.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>