> On May 15, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> 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 agree with the need for encapsulation in Web Components and have been arguing for it for a long time. Currently, despite agreement dating back several years, it doesn’t even offer a mode with better encapsulation. Now that the non-encapsulation version has shipped in Chrome, it may be hard to change other than by renaming everything. Web Components as currently designed cannot explain the behavior of any built-in elements (except maybe those which can be explained with CSS alone). Regards, Maciej
