Maybe I'm missing something but we clearly don't want to include
<shadowroot> in the general innerHTML getter case. If I implement
input[type=range] using custom elements + shadow DOM I don't want innerHTML
to show the internal guts.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
>
--
erik