- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:09:20 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 4/7/11 1:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> That's quite different from the problem Lachlan is talking about. What >> you're saying is that the root of the shadow tree does not appear in the >> final flattened tree at all, which is true. What Lachlan wants is things >> that appear in the final flattened tree but do not generate boxes of their >> own; their children's boxes are just placed in their parent instead. > > For our own implementation purposes, they are equivalent (I think) - > the shadow root is treated as part of the document, in that the shadow > nodes see it as an ancestor, but it's transparent when constructing > the render tree. Does the shadow root have the bound element as the parent? If not, then this doesn't sound equivalent. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 21:10:02 UTC