- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:10:24 +0000
- To: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, James Ross <james@james-ross.co.uk>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>, "dglazkov@google.com" <dglazkov@google.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, David Baron <dbaron@mozilla.com>, Potch <potch@mozilla.com>, Angelina Fabbro <angelina@mozilla.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote: > A few points of feedback about the last few messages: > • While the encapsulation of the JS DOM side of the Shadow spec is not frozen, it has a ton of steam behind it and I feel like the right level of encapsulation. That's not to say the goal of stronger 'Types' of encapsulation (in the Maciej sense) are undesirable or something we shouldn't introduce later. There doesn't seem to be a blocking technical issue with adding provisions for stronger encapsulation in the future - is that accurate? Not to belabor the point but I think the pushback reflects some members’ belief this should *not* be added later i.e. both Type 1 and Type 2 encapsulation should be supported. Given a design that conforms to this requirement we could then resolve the related issue of which one is the smarter default. But standardizing or shipping with Type 1 as the default *because there is nothing else yet* is explicitly considered the wrong way to go. To put it differently, the entire debate was ignited by a vendor’s announcement that Shadow DOM was shipping *without* Type 2 encapsulation; saying ‘we can add it later’ sort of re-states the problem that landed us all here, if that makes sense?
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 22:10:55 UTC