W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Mozilla and the Shadow DOM

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:50:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78gW4XV8T_u3518Z6obc6in7KXppxfnOFWnW+KYeRnvxmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> wrote:
> At the same time, however, I still have a concern, "Do developers really
> need such a fine-grained control? Is it too early optimization, isn't?"

There has been pretty clear feedback from e.g. Ember that not exposing
the primitives but rather a package of primitives is what stopped them
from adopting the technology. And this is a recurring theme whenever
we package various features together. It's why


was written up. And although that has been cited as support for Web
Components, it seems quite clear in hindsight that the initial Web
Components proposal did not go far enough.

> For example, in the past, event.path() filtered out a node if it's in an
> (open) shadow tree, however, I changed it because developers gave us the
> feedback that they want to see a node even if it's in a shadow tree.

Right, which is why I think we should not have event retargeting by
default. It makes sense for closed and future isolated trees, but not
for open. Also making event.path and event.target use a different
model is reminiscent of the originalTarget hack from XBL.

Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 09:50:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC