- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:28:07 +0100
- To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl (mailto:annevk@annevk.nl)> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com (mailto:dglazkov@google.com)> wrote: > > > Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on > > > ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not > > > be a DocumentFragment? > > > > No. all I'm saying that "we" made a conscious choice not to have > > innerHTML on DocumentFragment and that therefore we should not > > introduce it on ShadowRoot either (until we either revisit the > > DocumentFragment decision or someone shows that decision is not > > applicable to ShadowRoot somehow). > > Ah, got it. Well... The innerHTML is necessary for ShadowRoot. It's > not a matter of API taste or consistency. If you look at any shadow > DOM code today (however experimental), you'll see most of it using > innerHTML to populate the shadow tree. FWIW, one of the the most common use of doc fragment implies inserting a div into it to be able to use the div's innerHTML. For example, in jQuery: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/manipulation.js#L452-L457 --tobie
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 21:28:38 UTC