Re: Shadow DOM Imperative API proposal #1 vs <content select/slot>

Thanks Wilson and Anne!

One interesting thing I noticed is that the algo relies on
candidate.distributedNodes already being correctly populated by the nesting
shadow tree. Does that mean that we'd need to ensure the correct order of
invoking distribution among the nesting trees? Or maybe mutation observers
already help you do that?

:DG<

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> Wilson Page attempted to implement <content select> (with microtask
> observers as a timing solution for the time being) to see whether that
> proposal was workable:
>
>   https://gist.github.com/wilsonpage/d5520bd8d22327633e33
>
> Compared to how <content select> is implemented in #2 this looks
> rather jarring and we're not even sure whether it's correct.
>
> If someone could confirm whether it's correct or provide a complete
> solution I'd like to add it to the overall proposal page so that the
> proposals can be more easily compared:
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/Imperative-API-for-Node-Distribution-in-Shadow-DOM.md
>
> We should also provide a <content slot> implementation for the various
> solutions to see whether they can meet that proposal. Though I think
> as <content slot> was originally proposed the solution with #1 would
> get equally complex due to having to do recursive unwrapping of
> <content> elements in script. And the solution with #2 would be
> equally simple.
>
> (I updated that page quite significantly by the way to clarify #1 a
> bit, make #2 more readable, and also added some alternative solutions
> to the timing problem.)
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>