W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [webcomponents]: Making Shadow DOM Subtrees Traversable

From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:15:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO8i3ieW9nVjQFxasiJizRFE6EEDcTqA=98yPkT1dt2bsj1P7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@gmail.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> In the non-"hidden" case, I believe .shadowRoot is how you get access.

I meant in the non-"hidden" case. The name should make sense in terms of
accessing this property.

exposeRoot, hideRoot, publicRoot?

Re-reading Dimitri's email, in his description he kept saying
non-traversable, and then goes on to suggest names. Were there objections
to traversable/non-traversable? It seems like that was the natural way to
describe it during discussion.

On a related note, most of the suggestions have a negative context (such
that enabling takes something away), as opposed to a positive context (such
that disabled takes something away). Is there a proposed API for this? I'm
assuming this would be exposed via JS, not HTML, so it would be fine for
the API to have a positive context and the developer would set the value to
false to turn off the default behavior of exposing the root. I don't have a
strong opinion either way, it just stuck out that everyone was using a
negative context. If this would be exposed via an HTML attribute, then the
negative context makes sense.
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 15:15:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:59 UTC