Re: [webcomponents] Encapsulation and defaulting to open vs closed (was in www-style)

On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote:

>  
> Dimitri, Maciej, Ryosuke - is there a mutually agreeable solution here?
> 
> I am exactly sure what problem this thread hopes to raise and whether there is a need for anything other than what is already planned.

In the email Ryosuke cited, Tab said something that sounded like a claim that the WG had decided to do public mode only:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0221.html>
Quoting Tab:
> The decision to do the JS side of Shadow DOM this way was made over a
> year ago.  Here's the relevant thread for the decision:
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/thread.html#msg312>
> (it's rather long) and a bug tracking it
> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19562>.

I can't speak for Ryosuke but when I saw this claim, I was honestly unsure whether there had been a formal WG decision on the matter that I'd missed. I appreciate your clarification that you do not see it that way.


Quoting Dmitri again:
> The plan is, per thread I mentioned above, is to add a flag to createShadowRoot that hides it from DOM traversal APIs and relevant CSS selectors: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20144.

That would be great. Can you please prioritize resolving this bug[1]? It has been waiting for a year, and at the time the private/public change was made, it sounded like this would be part of the package.

It seems like there are a few controversies that are gated on having the other mode defined:
- Which of the two modes should be the default (if any)?
- Should shadow DOM styling primitives be designed so that they can work for private/closed components too?

Regards,
Maciej

[1] Incidentally, if you find the word "private" problematic, we could call the two modes "open" and "closed", then someday the third mode can be "secure" or "sandboxed"