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

On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>> All implementors are prone to using the 'this has already shipped'
>> argument. It comes with the territory. The awkward bit - on my end, at
>> least - is that it *sounds* like Google is asking the WG to commit to
>> whatever resolution comes out of this discussion and not re-visit it later.
> 
> You're buying too much into Björn's "specs are reality" ideas.  ^_^

Dept Of First World Problems: I so hate it when you make a joke and I don't know what you're referring to...

> 
> There's no implied commitment here, just the reality that whatever
> syntax we choose here is likely to freeze quickly as soon as it's
> shipped.  

> Even if we want to, it will be hard or impossible to change
> in the future.

That sounds a bit like pre-emptive fait accompli :). Shouldn't a large amount of content depend on this for things to be hard to change? It may be that Google plans to produce such content; or maybe you expects apps in your app store to quickly develop a lot of dependencies on this through libraries or what not? If so, I still think that's your responsibility. (And yes, it's risky)

> 
> Lots of Shadow DOM can be tweaked post-shipping, and likely will for
> some time as we continue to tweak things based on experience in the
> wild and further input from others.  CSS syntax probably can't,
> because that's how the world works.

This thread suggests there is more to it than syntax. (And for the record I'm fine with ^ and ^^, fwiw; more worried about whether/how component authors can choose what ^^ can see).

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 23:20:26 UTC