On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@google.com> wrote: > Also, if shadows are public by default the API to access the shadow is > well defined. If shadows are private by default and components decide to > expose the shadow ad hoc then there is no standardized API. > See below. > On Feb 26, 2013 1:59 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > Although the default provided by the spec is important, early adopters >> are >> > also important in shaping practice. There is apparently strong >> conviction on >> > both sides of the argument. If shadows are public by default, there is >> no >> > serious obstacle to making them private on an ad-hoc basis; if shadows >> are >> > private by default, there is no serious obstacle to making them public >> on an >> > ad-hoc basis. Maybe the spec should include non-normative commentary to >> make >> > web component authors aware of this choice, and then the >> "market"/Darwinian >> > process/etc. will decide. >> >> An argument to the contrary (which you do seem to acknowledge later in >> your message, if I'm reading correctly): if you make shadow private, >> but allow authors to make them public on an ad-hoc basis, there's no >> way for tools to reliably access the public shadows. > > Yes, that is what I intended to insinuate in this sentence: “If shadows are private by default, it would be nice for web component authors who want public shadows to get them in a way that is consistent and interoperable especially in the presence of multiple shadows.” > This was a >> problem earlier in the spec, when it was in exactly that state - you >> got handed your shadow root explicitly, and could, if you wanted, >> assign it to a public property on your own. That meant, though, that >> you could assign it to *any* property, so tools couldn't predict where >> to look. > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 20:47:31 UTC