On Apr 10, 2013 1:24 PM, "Scott Miles" <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, what you quoted are thoughts I already deprecated mysefl in this thread. :) > > If you read a bit further, see that I realized that <shadow-root> is really part of the 'outer html' of the node and not the inner html. > Yeah sorry, connectivity issue prevented me from seeing those until after i sent i guess.
> >> I think that is actually a feature, not a detriment and easily explainable. > > What is actually a feature? You mean that the shadow root is invisible to innerHTML? > Yes. > Yes, that's true. But without some special handling of Shadow DOM you get into trouble when you start using innerHTML to serialize DOM into HTML and transfer content from A to B. Or even from A back to itself. > I think Dimiti's implication iii is actually intuitive - that is what I am saying... I do think that round-tripping via innerHTML would be lossy of declarative markup used to create the instances inside the shadow... to get that it feels like you'd need something else which I think he also provided/mentioned. Maybe I'm alone on this, but it's just sort of how I expected it to work all along... Already, roundtripping can differ from the original source, If you aren't careful this can bite you in the hind-quarters but it is actually sensible. Maybe I need to think about this a little deeper, but I see nothing at this stage to make me think that the proposal and implications are problematic.
