- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:51:36 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. Yes, for some definition of "parent". ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 23:52:23 UTC