I don't see any reason why my document markup for some div should not be serializable back to how I wrote it via innerHTML. That seems just plain bad.
I hope you can take a look at what I'm saying about outerHTML. I believe at least the concept there solves all cases. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Brian Kardell <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
