I think we all agree that node.innerHTML should not reveal node's
ShadowDOM, ever.
What I am arguing is that, if we have <shadow-root> element that you can
use to install shadow DOM into an arbitrary node, like this:
<div>
<shadow-root>
Decoration --> <content></content> <-- Decoration
<shadow-root>
Light DOM
</div>
Then, as we agree, innerHTML is
LightDOM
but outerHTML would be
<div>
<shadow-root>
Decoration --> <content></content> <-- Decoration
<shadow-root>
Light DOM
</div>
I'm suggesting this outerHTML only for 'non-intrinsic' shadow DOM, by which
I mean Shadow DOM that would never exist on a node unless you hadn't
specifically put it there (as opposed to Shadow DOM intrinsic to a
particular element type).
With this inner/outer rule, all serialization cases I can think of work in
a sane fashion, no lossiness.
Scott
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>