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

Re: [Shadow] Q: Removable shadows (and an idea for lightweight shadows)?

From: Daniel Freedman <dfreedm@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:05:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAUAVAi-ZU=3eiH6dF5--51cViG9s4_7CPBSDv5sNzmzrnLNwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: Justin Fagnani <justinfagnani@google.com>, "Dimitri Glazkov (dglazkov@google.com)" <dglazkov@google.com>, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>, "Anne van Kesteren (annevk@annevk.nl)" <annevk@annevk.nl>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
How would you style these "shadow" children? Would the main document CSS
styles affect these children?

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

> > From: Justin Fagnani [mailto:justinfagnani@google.com]
> >> Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs that are very similar
> to
> >> existing node list management, e.g., appendShadowChild(),
> insertShadowBefore(),
> >> removeShadowChild(), replaceShadowChild(), shadowChildren[],
> shadowChildNodes[].
> >
> >This part seems like a big step back to me. Shadow roots being actual
> nodes means
> >that existing code and knowledge work against them.
> "existing code and knowledge work against them" -- I'm not sure you
> understood correctly.
> Nodes in the "shadow child list" wouldn't show up in the childNodes list,
> nor in any of the
> node traversal APIs (e.g., not visible to qSA, nextSibling,
> previousSibling, children, childNodes,
> ect.
> Trivially speaking, if you wanted to hide two divs that implement a "stack
> panel" and have some
> element render it, you'd just do:
> element.appendShadowChild(document.createElement('div'))
> element.appendShadowChild(document.createElement('div'))
> Those divs would not be discoverable by any traditional DOM APIs (they
> would now be on the
> "shadow side"), and the only way to see/use them would be to use the new
> element.shadowChildren
> collection.
> But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.
> >The API surface that you'd have to duplicate with shadow*() methods would
> be quite large.
> That's true. Actually, I think the list above is probably about it.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 19:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:44 UTC