I'd like this API to stay simple for v1 and support only named slots and
not tag names. I believe we can explain what <details> does with the
imperative API in v2.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>