On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the composition
problem:
https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I would like to
see solved with the primitive being discussed on this thread.
random comments about that blog post.
"Its intuitive then to create a combinator in CSS which allows you to select the
mount explicitly"
Yes, I agree with that assuming the mount actually wants to be selectable.
And even if all the mounts were selectable, we don't have atm a way to select
some particular
mount explicitly. And I think we should have that explicitly-ness. >>> or
/deep/ are like
select all and cross your fingers you selected what you wanted, and not
anything more.
We need to be able to select mount nodes explicitly, and perhaps explicitly say
that all such nodes should be selected.
So, maybe, deep(mountName) and deep(*)
"It still needs to be possible from the hosting page to say “Yes, I mean all buttons
should be blue”"
I disagree with that. It can very well be possible that some component really
must control the colors itself. Say, it uses
buttons to indicate if traffic light is red or green. Making both those buttons
suddenly blue would break the whole concept of the
component.
Without the explicitly-ness we're back having the initial problems we're trying
to solve, as the
blog says
"That is, preventing accidental violence against your allies is really hard – it’s simply too easy to accidentally select and operate on elements that
aren’t “yours“. "
Same explicitly-ness should apply to things like Event.path etc.
(I still think shadow DOM needs proper encapsulation, even if components would
all be 'allies'. A use case for encapsulation
would be rather similar to private: or protected: in many languages. But
encapsulation is perhaps a bit different issue from
weaker isolation.)
-Olli
