On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 12, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2) It couples templates, shadow DOM, and custom elements in a way that's >> highly opinionated and inflexible. Throughout this year, we've tried many >> various ways to get this right, and failed [2]. I highly recommend that we >> avoid putting this into a specification now. Instead, we should let the best >> practices evolve and build on the cowpaths.
We don't think decoupling custom elements and shadow DOM completely is useful given that most important and natural use cases of custom elements involve the use of shadow DOM. As I mentioned on other thread titled "auto-creating shadow DOM for custom elements", creating shadow DOM when an optional parameter is specified will give us a way to constrain the scope of shadow DOM to custom elements and move the shadow DOM specification forward without having to resolve all issues associated with attaching shadow DOMs to builtin elements. - R. Niwa
