On May 15, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm still trying to grasp the philosophy behind shadow trees. > Sometimes it's explained as "exposing the primitives" but the more I > learn (rather slowly, this time at BlinkOn) the more it looks like a > bunch of new primitives. > > We cannot explain <input> still, but since we allow going inside the > shadow tree we now see the need for a composed tree walker (a way to > iterate over a tree including its non-encapsulated interleaved shadow > trees). In addition we see the need for a composed range of sorts, so > selection across boundaries makes sense. Neither of these are really > needed to explain bits of the existing platform. I would really like get a grasp on everyone's perspective here as well (please be as concise as possible). I feel that a lot of contention about shadow DOM and other aspects of Web Components comes from the fact everyone has his/her own definition of Web Components. It would be of great use to state clearly what problem each party is trying/hoping to resolve with Web Components, or more specifically with shadow DOM in this thread. - R. Niwa
