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

On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Daniel Freedman <dfreedm@google.com> wrote:
>>> Since you have preciously claimed that instantiating a template element may not be a common pattern for custom elements / web components, I have a hard time accepting the claim that you’re certain accessing shadow root is a common coding pattern.
>>> 
>>> Surely as the person asking for the more restricted form, the onus falls to you to make the argument that the added restrictions show their value. 
>> 
>> I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re asking for the more restricted form since Apple has never agreed to support the more open form (Type I encapsulation) in the first place.
>> 
>> I don't understand this point, can you elaborate? It certainly seems like you are asking for a form of ShadowDOM encapsulation that is more restrictive than the already defined Type 1.
> 
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 6:55 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
>> > I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re asking for the more restricted form since Apple has never agreed to support the more open form (Type I encapsulation) in the first place.
>> 
>> Wait....what? Either what you want *is* more restricted than Type 1 or it's not. If it is, the burden falls to you to outline use-cases and identify users (as type 1 proponents have).
>> 
> I’m saying that YOU are the one asking for Type I encapsulation on the basis that we’ve never agreed that Type I encapsulation is necessary or desirable for the level 1 specifications.  The only consensus we’ve had in this working group so far was to add a switch between two modes since Google representatives have insisted that they want Type I encapsulation and Apple representatives have insisted that we want Type II encapsulation.  Neither party has convinced each other that either type is desirable, let alone which one is a better default, as far as I can tell.
> 
I’m not saying that only Type I encapsulation proponents bear the burden to make the case.  I’m simply stating that proponents of Type I and Type II encapsulations equally bear the burdens to make their case for each encapsulation model.

- R. Niwa