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

Re: Imperative API for Node Distribution in Shadow DOM (Revisited)

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:48:30 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Erik Bryn <erik@erikbryn.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-id: <C07BC2F1-8B5C-4AA0-96D2-F4B9BB738B8E@apple.com>
To: Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com>

> On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:25 AM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
>> > If we wanted to allow non-direct child descendent (e.g. grand child node) of
>> > the host to be distributed, then we'd also need O(m) algorithm where m is
>> > the number of under the host element.  It might be okay to carry on the
>> > current restraint that only direct child of shadow host can be distributed
>> > into insertion points but I can't think of a good reason as to why such a
>> > restriction is desirable.
> The main reason is that you know that only a direct parent of a node can distribute it. Otherwise any ancestor could distribute a node, and in addition to probably being confusing and fragile, you have to define who wins when multiple ancestors try to.
> There are cases where you really want to group element logically by one tree structure and visually by another, like tabs. I think an alternative approach to distributing arbitrary descendants would be to see if nodes can cooperate on distribution so that a node could pass its direct children to another node's insertion point. The direct child restriction would still be there, so you always know who's responsible, but you can get the same effect as distributing descendants for a cooperating sets of elements.

That's an interesting approach. Ted and I discussed this design, and it seems workable with Anne's `distribute` callback approach (= the second approach in my proposal).

Conceptually, we ask each child of a shadow host the list of distributable node for under that child (including itself). For normal node without a shadow root, it'll simply itself along with all the distribution candidates returned by its children. For a node with a shadow root, we ask its implementation. The recursive algorithm can be written as follows in pseudo code:

NodeList distributionList(Node n):
  if n has shadowRoot:
    return <ask n the list of distributable noes under n (1)>
    list = [n]
    for each child in n:
      list += distributionList(n)
    return list

Now, if we adopted `distribute` callback approach, one obvious mechanism to do (1) is to call `distribute` on n and return whatever it didn't distribute as a list. Another obvious approach is to simply return [n] to avoid the mess of n later deciding to distribute a new node.

>> So you mean that we'd turn distributionList into a subtree? I.e. you
>> can pass all descendants of a host element to add()? I remember Yehuda
>> making the point that this was desirable to him.
>> The other thing I would like to explore is what an API would look like
>> that does the subclassing as well. Even though we deferred that to v2
>> I got the impression talking to some folks after the meeting that
>> there might be more common ground than I thought.
> I really don't think the platform needs to do anything to support subclassing since it can be done so easily at the library level now that multiple generations of shadow roots are gone. As long as a subclass and base class can cooperate to produce a single shadow root with insertion points, the platform doesn't need to know how they did it.

I think we should eventually add native declarative inheritance support for all of this.

One thing that worries me about the `distribute` callback approach (a.k.a. Anne's approach) is that it bakes distribution algorithm into the platform without us having thoroughly studied how subclassing will be done upfront.

Mozilla tried to solve this problem with XBS, and they seem to think what they have isn't really great. Google has spent multiple years working on this problem but they come around to say their solution, multiple generations of shadow DOM, may not be as great as they thought it would be. Given that, I'm quite terrified of making the same mistake in spec'ing how distribution works and later regretting it.

In that regard, the first approach w/o distribution has an advantage of letting Web developer experiment with the bare minimum and try out which distribution algorithms and mechanisms work best.

- R. Niwa
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 03:49:00 UTC

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