Re: [webcomponents] How about let's go with slots?

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>
wrote:

> Pardon my question if this has been discussed elsewhere, but it's not
> clear from my reading of the "slots" proposal whether they would be allowed
> to target elements that are not direct children of the component.
>
> I believe the with the `select` attribute this was implicitly required
> because only compound selectors were supported (i.e. no child or descendent
> combinators) [1].
>

I think the actually issue is that you might have fights over who gets to
redistribute an element. Given

<my-el-1>
  <my-el-2>
    <div content-slot="foo"></div>
  </my-el-2>
</my-el-1>

If both my-el-1 and my-el-2 have "foo" slots, who wins? What if the winner
by whatever rules adds a clashing slot name in a future update?

I mentioned in this in Imperative API thread, but I think the least
surprising way forward for distributing non-children is to allow nodes to
cooperate on distribution, so a element could send its distributed nodes to
an ancestor:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015AprJun/0325.html



>
> Would named slots be able to target elements farther down in the tree?
>

> [1]
> http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#dfn-content-element-select
>