W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Fallout of non-encapsulated shadow trees

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <40451B2F-4048-4CEA-AAB8-0D46075F24CB@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>

> On May 15, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> 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 agree with the need for encapsulation in Web Components and have been arguing for it for a long time. Currently, despite agreement dating back several years, it doesn’t even offer a mode with better encapsulation. Now that the non-encapsulation version has shipped in Chrome, it may be hard to change other than by renaming everything.

Web Components as currently designed cannot explain the behavior of any built-in elements (except maybe those which can be explained with CSS alone).

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 02:25:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC