- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:58:21 +0000
- To: "dglazkov@google.com" <dglazkov@google.com>
- CC: "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 6, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > [1] In fact, the original agreement on the thread was to support both "public" and "private", in the sense that components could fully expose their shadow innards or not, and then the default could be decided. Dmitri even agreed to add support for a flag to decide this, but never did: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0612.html>. > > It doesn't mean I don't want to solve the problem. And the statements Shadow DOM being designed in a way that Type 2 encapsulation is not possible -- those are simply not true. The whole thing was carefully designed in a way to keep this option an incremental evolutionary step. > Agreeing Type 2 encapsulation is a future evolutionary step implies agreement that Type 1 encapsulation is OK as a default. Agreement that Type 2 encapsulation is a future evolutionary step implies agreement that Type 1 encapsulation is an acceptable default (at least for the time being, if we charitably assume it could be changed later…). So I think the debate is not so much whether Type 2 can be added later as much as its being considered a future and therefore ‘nice-to-have’ feature instead of a ‘must-have’ default. Tab suggests you started from the latter point of view before reality pushed you to the former. Looking forward to hearing more on the how and why...
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 23:58:50 UTC