- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:33:04 -0800
- To: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com> wrote: > I'd like to second that, shadow DOM is explicitly designed not to be > accessible from outside, to stay consistent, to be sure that nothing gets > broken by altering the internals of Shadow DOM control/widget. I'd like to > be able to create controls in the future and give those controls to users to > place them anywhere. I do not want to hear "our site is broken, because > something else on our page was checking if there's a DIV there and you > changed it to SECTION, you suck!", internals of the controls should stay > internals of the control. You are effectively crippling half of the > advantage of Shadow DOM: the ability do whatever I want to do inside the > control as long as I expose the same API between versions. If a script is explicitly looking inside the shadows of unknown controls and checking their contents (and then failing when the unknown control has different contents than whatever it expected), something is *messed up* with that script. You don't just accidentally see the insides of shadows. All the traditional movement and search APIs skip them. I don't think this is a realistic fear (not to say it won't happen somewhere, sometime - the web is big, and people tile the possibility space, including all the bad ideas). > So if this is going to be breached, there should be a way for control > authors to decide, whether they want to opt for this traversing or not... There is. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 17:33:52 UTC