> On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Travis Leithead <travis.leith...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > Today’s ShadowDOM model is designed around only adding shadow roots to > element in the ‘light side’. I assume this is intentional, but was hoping > someone could describe why this design was chosen? Or said another way, if > there was an imperative API to _remove_ a shadow DOM, would that symmetry be > bad? > > In full transparency, I’m thinking about potential solutions for a simplified > shadow dom, and it occurs to me that it can’t get much simpler than the > following: > · Elements only [ever] have one “shadow side” which is essentially a > secondary child node list. Whenever anything’s in this list the Element > renders that content instead of its “light” children. (Or maybe there’s a > switch to tell the element which side to render: light or dark?) > · Elements expose this “shadow node list” via APIs that are very > similar to existing node list management, e.g., appendShadowChild(), > insertShadowBefore(), removeShadowChild(), replaceShadowChild(), > shadowChildren[], shadowChildNodes[]. > · No special Event swizzling, no security boundary, no alternate > script engine, no intermediate shadow root object, etc. This minimalist > approach only provides node ‘hiding’ and potentially an alternate rendering > path. > · Another feature could then provide the stronger “component” > boundary, specifically the javascript global scope isolation. This > delineation may more closely match the division we are seeing between the > “React-like” scenarios and more robust component-kitchen-style custom element > deployments.
Am I right in understanding that those shadow child node can have direct children? If that were the case, then this model is functionally equivalent to a model with shadow root. Those shadow children we add in this model is essentially new shadow root because we can have a tree of nodes "in shadow" under them. - R. Niwa
