Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.

On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:

> Hi Dimitri,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> As indicated by Tab at the F2F, Blink currently implements the cat/hat
>> combinators proposed by yours truly [3].
>> 
>> FWIW, I don't fully understand why it would be so terrible to leave
>> cat and hat alone (in talking with Tab, there's only a weak precedent
>> for preferring pseudo element functions to combinators with
>> ::content), but I am okay with renaming them. Ultimately, it's this
>> WG's shed, I just store my bike there.
> 
> I don't think host documents should be able to select arbitrary elements
> in the shadow DOM. A much better model, which IIRC was in one of your
> documents at one point, is to let the component author explicitly export
> certain shadow elements as pseudos. Something like:
> 
> # In shadow tree
> 
>    <div pseudo=foo>...</div>
> 
> # in CSS, if that shadow tree is attached to el with id bar
> 
>    #bar::pseudo(foo) { ... }
> 
> In this model, the component author is only signing up for a contract
> for which they know the terms.
> 

+1 to this. Sorry I missed why this model was rejected; is there a pointer to the discussion that resolved to not move forward with this approach?

> Also, given the several open threads on public-webapps about various
> foundational components issues, I think it would be a mistake to ship an
> implementation without either prefixing it or putting it behind a
> disabled-by-default runtime flag. That said, I'm sure you guys
> understand Blink's policy for exposing features to the Web better than I
> do.


If you want to ship it once, wait for consensus. If you want to ship it now, be ready to change it. Trying to cattle-prod some kind of consensus with 'speak now or forever hold your peace' language is a rather off-putting way to try and make progress.

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 19:44:57 UTC