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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:57:21 -0700
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Erik Bryn <erik@erikbryn.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>
Message-id: <4745BD4E-5AC2-495E-BE95-EB4AF31C9D09@apple.com>
To: Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org>
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:59 AM Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:00 AM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This essentially forces distribution to happen since you can observe the result of distribution this way. Same with element.offsetWidth etc. And that's not necessarily problematic,
>> >
>> > OK. So the claim that the current spec cannot be interoperably implemented is false? (Not that I am a huge fan of <content select>, but I want to make sure we have our arguments against it lined up and on solid footing.)
>> >
>> >> but it is problematic if you want to do an imperative API as I tried to explain in the bit you did not quote back.
>> >
>> > Sure, let's dig in to that claim now. Again, this is mostly clarifying probing.
>> >
>> > Let's say we had an imperative API. As far as I understand from the gist, one of the problems is when do we invoke the distributedCallback. If we use MutationObserve time, then inconsistent states can be observed, etc.
>> >
>> > Why can't we say that this distributedCallback must be invoked at the same time that the current spec updates the distribution result? Since it sounds like there is no interop problem with this timing, I don't understand why this wouldn't be an option.
>> 
>> There will be an interop problem. Consider a following example:
>> 
> 
> The return value of (2) is the same in either case. There is no observable difference. No interop issue.
> 
> Please file a bug for the spec with a concrete example if you can find a observable difference due to the lazy-evaluation of the distribution.

The problem isn't so much that the current shadow DOM specification has an interop issue because what we're talking here, as the thread title clearly communicates, is the imperative API for node distribution, which doesn't exist in the current specification.

In particular, invoking user code at the timing specified in section 3.4 which states "if any condition which affects the distribution result changes, the distribution result must be updated before any use of the distribution result" introduces a new interoperability issue because "before any use of the distribution result" is implementation dependent.  e.g. element.offsetTop may or not may use the distribution result depending on UA.  Furthermore, it's undesirable to precisely spec this since doing so will impose a serious limitation on what UAs could optimize in the future.

- R. Niwa
Received on Friday, 1 May 2015 03:57:51 UTC

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