Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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.
>

I agree, and this was my position at the time, FWIW.


>
> / Jonas
>