Maybe I'm missing something but we clearly don't want to include <shadowroot> in the general innerHTML getter case. If I implement input[type=range] using custom elements + shadow DOM I don't want innerHTML to show the internal guts.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Scott Miles <sjmi...@google.com> wrote: > 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 <bkard...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Apr 10, 2013 1:24 PM, "Scott Miles" <sjmi...@google.com> 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. >> > > -- erik