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

Re: Fallout of non-encapsulated shadow trees

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:16:43 -0700
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Message-id: <E5BC2A7E-4830-4C9F-B0AE-F688BF9B87BA@apple.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: Edward O'Connor [mailto:eoconnor@apple.com] 
>>> But soft encapsulation is just as useless for explaining the platform 
>>> as no encapsulation at all.
>> I think "just as useless" overstates your case. Type 2 allows you to hide implementation details of your component from authors better than Type 1 does. Yes, it's not isolation for security purposes, so it doesn't get you the whole way, but like Brendan said, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> Well, but *for explaining the platform* it is just as useless. It may be useful independently for authors who wish to protect against interference by people who are afraid of feeling bad, but it is not useful for explaining the platform.
> My personal perspective is that it is already a shame we are on track to have two versions (in some sense) of web components: the existing one, and one that explains the platform. It would be a shame to have a third in between those two, that is unlike the existing one but also does not explain the platform. So I guess along this axis I would strongly prefer "perfect" to "good," I suppose because I think what we have already is "good."

I don't understand.  We're not on track to have any versions of Web Components as is.  We haven't even agreed upon which types of encapsulation should be used by default.

On Jul 1, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: Brendan Eich [mailto:brendan@secure.meer.net] 
>> Sorry, I'm confused. What do we have now, already, among top browsers that is "good"? Or do you mean prospective stuff? Because among interoperating browsers, AFAIK we do not have any XBL2 or Shadow DOM or other such, after all these years.
> I am not sure of your definition of prospective and top browsers, but according to https://jonrimmer.github.io/are-we-componentized-yet/ and linked issues, Chrome/Opera is shipping and Firefox is shipping behind a flag. And by shipping, I mean shipping the current shadow DOM spec, which I consider "good."

Obviously, I'm not in a position to speak for Mozilla but I'm not certain "Firefox is shipping behind a flag" accurately reflects their position given the following post made by Boris on blink-dev:

I would love to hear from Mozillians if they have gotten enough developer feedbacks to change their position on the matter or not.

- R. Niwa
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 01:17:26 UTC

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