W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:42:21 +0200
Message-ID: <5123E3AD.9090705@helsinki.fi>
To: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 02/19/2013 10:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc <mailto:jonas@sicking.cc>> wrote:
>     On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
>      > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com <mailto:dglazkov@google.com>> wrote:
>      >> We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right, Anne?
>      >
>      > Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end of the day.
>      >
>      > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14694#c7
>      >
>      > So given that consensus still putting it on ShadowRoot strikes me like
>      > a bad idea (as I think I've said somewhere in a bug). The same goes
>      > for various other members of ShadowRoot.
>     I don't think there's a consensus really. JS authors were very vocal
>     about needing this ability. Does anyone have a link to the "strong
>     case against adding explicit API for DF.innerHTML" from Hixie that
>     that comment refers to?
> Unfortunately that comment referred to an IRC discussion that took place last June on #whatwg.
We do have logs for #whatwg. See the topic of that channel.

> IIRC, Hixie's position was that adding more explicit API for innerHTML is a moral hazard because it encourages an anti-pattern. (Also IIRC), Anne and
> Henri both sided with Hixie at the time and the DF.innerHTML got left in a ditch.
> It's also worth pointing out that if it was decided to have innerHTML on DF and on ShadowRoot, they would likely have subtly different semantics:
> -DF.innerHTML would parse exactly the way <template>.innerHTML does (using the 'implied context parsing).
> -SR.innerHTML would use its host as the context element and the output would be as if the input *had been* applied to <host>.innerHTML, then lifted
> out and attached to the SR.
> (I believe the later currently the case for ShadowRoot).
>     / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 20:43:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:58 UTC