Re: Fallout of non-encapsulated shadow trees

On May 15, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:

> I'm still trying to grasp the philosophy behind shadow trees.
> Sometimes it's explained as "exposing the primitives" but the more I
> learn (rather slowly, this time at BlinkOn) the more it looks like a
> bunch of new primitives.
> We cannot explain <input> still, but since we allow going inside the
> shadow tree we now see the need for a composed tree walker (a way to
> iterate over a tree including its non-encapsulated interleaved shadow
> trees). In addition we see the need for a composed range of sorts, so
> selection across boundaries makes sense. Neither of these are really
> needed to explain bits of the existing platform.

I would really like get a grasp on everyone's perspective here as well (please be as concise as possible).

I feel that a lot of contention about shadow DOM and other aspects of Web Components comes from the fact everyone has his/her own definition of Web Components.

It would be of great use to state clearly what problem each party is trying/hoping to resolve with Web Components, or more specifically with shadow DOM in this thread.

- R. Niwa

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 02:24:15 UTC