- From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:14:39 -0500
- To: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:15:10 UTC
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bronislav Klučka < Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com> wrote: > > On 7.3.2013 19:54, Scott González wrote: >> >> Who is killing anything? >> > Hi, given > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webapps/** > 2013JanMar/0676.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0676.html> > I've misunderstood your point as advocating against Shadow altogether. > Ok, good to know that this was mostly just a miscommunication. > 2nd is is practical: not having to care about the internals, so I do not > break it by accident from outside. If the only way to work with internals > is by explicit request for internals and then working with them, but > without the ability to breach the barrier accidentally, without the > explicit request directly on the shadow host, this concern is satisfied and > yes, there will be no clashes except for control naming. > My understanding is that you have to explicitly ask to walk into the shadow, so this wouldn't happen accidentally. Can someone please confirm or deny this?
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:15:10 UTC