Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <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.
>
> 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.

The "discouraging" that we're currently doing doesn't seem terribly
effective. Developers seem to just grab/create a random element and
set .innerHTML on that.

So I think the current state of affairs is just doing a disservice to
everyone, including ourselves.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 07:43:57 UTC