- From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:34:19 -0700
- To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>, Matthew McNulty <mmcnulty@google.com>, Hajime Morrita <morrita@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CAHbmOLYOmMZzDi1COYspx=8ZdPEftpGpBhR9nXvJ94H-ETMvyA@mail.gmail.com>
I made an attempt to describe how these things can be non-lossy here: https://gist.github.com/sjmiles/5358120 On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: > input/video would have intrinsic Shadow DOM, so it would not ever be part > of outerHTML. > > I don't have a precise way to differentiate intrinsic Shadow DOM from > non-intrinsic Shadow DOM, but my rule of thumb is this: 'node.outerHTML' > should produce markup that parses back into 'node' (assuming all > dependencies exist). > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Once again, how would this work for input/video? >> >> Are you suggesting that `createShadowRoot` behaves different than when >> you create the shadow root using markup? >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> erik >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 20:34:47 UTC