Apologies for not replying earlier. The last few weeks were a bit... uhm... hectic.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Roland Steiner > <[email protected]> wrote: >> .) Being an element, can a <shadowroot> can itself have a <shadowroot>?. >> <div> >> <shadowroot> >> <shadowroot> We should probably not allow this, throwing an exception. >> >> .) Similar to the above: can <content> and <shadow> have <shadowroot> >> children? Note, that <shadowroot> Element may never be a child node of an element. The proposal was that upon using appendChild with <shadowroot> element as an argument, createShadowRoot is called. Other than that, yes, in markup, <content>/<shadow> totally can have a <shadowroot> nested inside of them. >> >> .) Behavior of a DocumentFragment being inserted into the document also >> needs twizzling if it contains a <shadowroot>. Yup. The psychedelic stuff begins when you start contemplating how ShadowRoot looks as a child of a DocumentFragment. Clearly, you can't have DocumentFragment host a ShadowRoot, so it would have to be "spring-loaded" in some way... which means that it would need to be a child of a DocumentFragment... which means that the whole "may never be a child node" thing has at least one exception. Yeah... that's... "awesome". At least initially, the <shadowroot> felt like very <template>-like to me. In other words, more like this: <div id="would-be-shadow-host"> <template shadow> <div> ... Where "shadow" is a special attribute that _binds_ the template to its parent, where "binds" is defined as creating a shadow root. :DG<
