W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Shadow tree style isolation primitive

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:24:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky22eWmdNPVPkiJdwkOzZc12AqCyiuiEyQiSVVr7xYopHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi> wrote:
> >> Why do we need shadow DOM (or something similar) at all if we expose it
> >> easily to the outside world.
> >> One could even now just require that elements in "components" in a web
> page
> >> have class="component", and then
> >> .component could be used as >>>. Sure, it would require :not(.component)
> >> usage too.
> >> And from DOM APIs side one could easily implement filtering for the
> contents
> >> of "components" using small script libraries.
> >
> > Aa;erlhas;dlgpasodifapsldikjf;
> >
> > I keep hearing this kind of sentiment pop up, and I'm like, have you
> > ever done serious webdev?  I know a lot of browser devs haven't, and I
> > don't know if you have or not, but this is the sort of thing that is
> > plain as day if you have.
>
> That sounds rather demeaning and insulting [1].  public-webapps, or a
> mailing list of any W3C working group, isn't an appropriate forum to rant.
>

+1.


> However, the use case we're talking here is multiple teams working on a
> single website potentially stepping on each other's toes; implying the
> enormous size of the entity working on the website.  I have a hard time
> imagining that any organization of that scale to not have a sever-side or
> pre-deployment build step for the website at which point they can add a
> preprocessing step to modify all selectors.  e.g. even a website I worked
> on with only four other people had a build step before we could deploy it.
>

The need to modify selectors on the server side is highly symptomatic of
the composition problem remaining unsolved. This processing is not due to
the burning desire of the developers to munge their selectors, but rather
due to their inability to reason about the composition of styles, and
having to rely on out-of-band composition.

For all the criticism Shadow DOM receives, it is currently the only
solution that solves this problem. As I mentioned before, I am very open to
using Shadow DOM to extract a simpler primitive that is more focused on
solving the style composition problem in-band.

However, I would like to first understand if that is the problem that the
group wants to solve. It is unclear from this conversation.

:DG<
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 00:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC