- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:44:31 +0000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28211 Bug ID: 28211 Summary: [Shadow]: A syntax for loading/parsing shadow trees directly from HTML Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Component Model Assignee: dglazkov@chromium.org Reporter: dglazkov@chromium.org QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org, travil@microsoft.com Blocks: 14978 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0800.html >From Travis: The way I see it, an HTML Import is already a shadow DOM builder (from a URL). Imports point to a URL, fetch it, parse it (in the context of the parent's scripting global environment), and then drop the completed document (and it's dependents) in the 'import' property of the Link element. HTML Imports don't render the imported document anywhere ('cause it ain't bound to an element yet--where would you render it?). If ShadowRoot constructors had the ability to load from a URL, I would propose that the good parts of HTML Imports be used as the model for the loaded shadow dom. There would be a few tweaks of course, but the model appears sound to me. Why is this alluring to me? * Loading a custom element is more... componentized. The element's shadow dom (and behavior) can be imported locally in relation to the element host. From what I have heard recently, custom elements (of sufficient complexity) without shadow dom doesn't make much sense. * The URL can be the basis for script-level access control to the component's shadow dom (a known and well-established pattern that exists for iframe). * We can reuse much of the existing investment in imports * Shadow dom components are allowed to independently load resources (e.g., notably stylesheets) behind a potentially access-controlled boundary * Existing patterns for synchronously loading a shadow dom as work today (without a URL) may be largely unaffected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 20:44:34 UTC