Re: [webcomponents]: Allowing text children of ShadowRoot is a bad time

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> > Maybe it's time to reconsider if ShadowRoot should be an element rather
> than
> > a DocumentFragment again?
>

Actually, that's the first thing I said to Elliott when I saw his mail.
Then he turned to me and said: remember all the serialization crap we
sifted through to finally reach the conclusion that ShadowRoot as element
is a bad idea?

At which it all paged in (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0356.html),
and I convulsed on the floor from the standards-discussion equivalent of
the brain freeze.


>
> Either that or let it have its own node type if it's going to be
> incompatible with DocumentFragment in terms of behavior. Alternatively
> we could add more hidden state such as "host" which we added for
> <template>, but that's not exactly great.
>

There's something to that. ShadowRoot is more like Document than a
DocumentFragment.

:DG<