- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:07:41 -0800
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3ZqqpzV4qUfrfTJkDv9JcT-Jifq6dygEDDemzt9i-tHQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > (This email summarizes some offline conversation I had with Alex, so we > can get more people involved. I'm also CCing people who I know have an > interest in this sort of thing.) > > It seems to me that the technical review of shadow DOM is already well > underway via implementers and implementer feedback. This has produced a > number of good results, e.g. Anne's attempts to formalize the "monkey > patching" they do of DOM algorithms. As such technical review of the spec > is probably well taken care of already. > > However, there's a lot of interesting stuff the TAG could advise, around > how well the shadow DOM fits into the platform, the platform's future, and > our general interest in a layering strategy. For example, can shadow DOM be > used to explain existing elements, like <video> or <input type="range">, in > terms of a lower-level primitive? > > As of now, it seems like it cannot, for two reasons: > > 1. Native elements have extra capabilities which are not granted by shadow > DOM, or by custom elements. For example, they can participate in form > submission. > 2. The shadow tree of native elements is entirely encapsulated; you cannot > access it via JavaScript, or style it via CSS (even with > the-selectors-formerly-known-as-cat-and-hat). This is a hard security > boundary---much harder than the permeable-via-esoteric-tricks encapsulation > boundary being suggested by Apple on public-webapps. > > #1 suggests it would be helpful to enumerate what platform capabilities > are still missing from the web components work. I know Arv has been doing > some of this, filing bugs on the spec related to missing capabilities. > > #2 is interesting. It has two possible outcomes. On the one hand, this > could tie back to the desires for a strong encapsulation version of shadow > DOM, that completely allows the component's author to hide all > implementation details. On the other hand, it could lead to attempting to > loosen the boundary, so that authors *could* use standard shadow DOM > mechanisms to style <select> or <video> elements. This would be a large > project, since we'd want to be sure there is a standard set of accessible > structures across user agents. It may not be possible. But it would help > solve an age-old problem of how to style the darn <select> element. > > Finally, another interesting aspect of how shadow DOM could help explain > the platform is in terms of CSS generated content. Could it give some real > life structure to ::before, ::after, etc.? Apparently this is tricky > because implementations typically make these pseudo-elements more > lightweight than a typical shadow element would be. But it is worth > exploring whether this is possible. > Elliott had done some explorations on how that could be done a while back. Not sure if he still have all that data paged in. :DG<
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:08:08 UTC