Re: [webcomponents]: Let's reach consensus on Shadow DOM

Hi Dimitri,

Thanks for writing up that page.  I think it's valuable to have some documentation like this since the discussion has been scatters across many threads and a long time span.

Another point of contention appears to be how show isolation is done particularly in the world where we've separated style isolation from event retargeting.

I also think it would be valuable if you (or someone else) could add the description for which use case and scenario each feature is needed or used.  That way, we can make an informed assessment of whether a new "unicorn" people come up withstands all the requirements the original "unicorn" satisfied, and if not, whether the trade off is acceptable or not.

- R. Niwa

> On Feb 6, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I wrote a long email, replying to each point where I agreed/differed with Ryosuke, and then deleted it, realizing I wasn't being productive.
> 
> So instead, I decided to start summarizing the contentious bits of the current Shadow DOM spec: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/wiki/Shadow-DOM:-Contentious-Bits
> 
> We are at a point where there are hard choices to be made. But with the 4+ history of the adventure, it's nearly impossible for everyone to recall or catch up on discussions and relevant insight.
> 
> With this doc, I am hoping we'll get on the same page and make way.
> 
> :DG<