Re: Shadow DOM spec for v1 is ready to be reviewed

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com> wrote:
> > - Some of the remaining issues are difficult to address in the Shadow DOM
> > spec because it requires non-trivial monkey patches to DOM.  I have a
> plan
> > to upstream the Shadow DOM spec into DOM in the near future. After that,
> I
> > think we can address some of issues by updating DOM spec directly.
>
> That sounds great!
>
> It also seems there's still a number of issues around integration with
> HTML. That is, what the effect of HTML elements should be inside
> shadow trees. I seem to remember Ian having more detailed notes, but
> quickly looking around I only found:
>
> * https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27406
> * https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26952
> * https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28748
>
> And these don't seem to mention the effects of various algorithms.
> E.g., named access on the global object currently finds child browsing
> contexts, but I don't think we would want it to return any that are
> inside a shadow tree. And should browsing contexts inside shadow trees
> have an effect on history?
>
>
I think the spec should address these issues and define the well-defined
behavior clearly. The current spec looks too lazy because it only mention
the following:

> Window object named properties [HTML] must access the nodes in the
document tree.

I think this is not enough to achieve the interoperability among UAs.


> Then there's the matter of text selection which we're not sure about
> what to do. Have you folks worked on that?
>
>
I've discussed this topic several times in Google, however, this is still
an unsolved problem.
We don't have anything which we can upstream to the spec yet.
In Blink, we've supported only "Copy" for a selection which spans shadow
boundaries.
Any ideas are highly welcome.


>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>