Thanks for the clarifications, Arthur! On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/6/14 9:06 PM, ext Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> Could chairs of the working group please clarify whether we have had a reach >> of consensus on the default encapsulation level in shadow DOM? > > As described in [WorkMode], WebApps' asynchronous participation and edit > first "work modes" means group members must actively participate on the list > and actively file bugs and participate in bug reports. We also expect both > Editors and group participants to work toward obtaining broad consensus as > described in the charter [Decisions]. Thanks for remaining me, and in fact, we’re aware of this. We were simply surprised that other participants of the working group thought there was a consensus on this matter because it wasn’t our understanding of the situation but we didn’t want to jump to any conclusion. >> More concretely, have we _decided_ that we only want Type 1 encapsulation >> for the level 1 specifications of Web components instead of Type 2 or Type 1 >> and Type 2 encapsulations as defined in Maciej's email sent out in June >> 29th, 2011: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1364.html >> >> I don't recall any consensus being reached about this matter. >> >> In fact, >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/thread.html#msg312 >> (referred by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0221.html) >> clearly shows the lack of consensus in my eyes as both Boris Zbarsky from >> Mozilla and Maciej Stachowiak from Apple have voiced to prefer Type 2 >> encapsulation: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0406.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0421.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0628.html >> >> while representatives of Google preferring Type 1 encapsulations. > > I agree the threads started by Maciej at [1364.html] and Dimitri at > [0312.html] do not appear to have reached broad consensus. (I am not > subscribed to www-style so I haven't followed those discussions.) Great. That is my understanding as well. > Dimitri, Maciej, Ryosuke - is there a mutually agreeable solution here? I think the contention here is about which types of encapsulations need to be supported in the level 1 specifications. It would be great to sort it out somehow because it’s hard to discuss specifics unless we’ve agreed upon the use cases and requirements for them first. - R. Niwa
