Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren > >> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dim

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren >> wrote: >> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov >> > wrote: >> >> We were thinking of adding innerHTML to D

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On 02/19/2013 10:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking mailto:jo...@sicking.cc>> wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren mailto:ann...@annevk.nl>> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov mailto:dglaz...@google.

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: > >> We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... > right, Anne? > > > > Well I thought so, b

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren (mailto:ann...@annevk.nl)> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov > (mailto:dglaz...@google.com)> wrote: > > > Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we ha

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on >> ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not >> be a DocumentFragment? > > No. all I'm

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on > ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not > be a DocumentFragment? No. all I'm saying that "we" made a conscious choice not to have innerHTML on D

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> Also, I want to know better which part of _putting it on ShadowRoot_ >> strikes Anne as bad. I would like striking him at all, especially with ^^^ would like TO AVOID striking

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > Also, I want to know better which part of _putting it on ShadowRoot_ > strikes Anne as bad. I would like striking him at all, especially with > something bad :P Mainly, if it's bad for DocumentFragment, it's bad for ShadowRoot too. I think

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> So given that consensus still putting it on ShadowRoot strikes me like >> a bad idea (as I think I've said somewhere in a bug). The same goes >> for various other members of Shado

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right, >> Anne? > > Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end of the day. > > https://www.w

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right, > Anne? Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end of the day. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14694#c7 So given that consensus s

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > Thank you for enumerating the list, Jonas! > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> >> I chatted with Blake about this today and had some thoughts. >> >> There is definitely no simple answer here, feels like using ei

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

Thank you for enumerating the list, Jonas! On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I chatted with Blake about this today and had some thoughts. > > There is definitely no simple answer here, feels like using either an > Element or a DocumentFragment has some crappy behavior. S

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Adding API to *some* DocumentFragment will likely mean that > people will need to check just what type of DocumentFragment they > have. Although not exposed, because of .contents we now effectively have a special type of DocumentFragment. Th

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Right now, the shadow root inside a component isn't an element, so it > can't host styles, etc. This makes a few things weird, though. > > For example, it means that it's non-trivial to get at the style of > text nodes directly inside the s

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. > wrote: > > Sorry, my mistake. My point is that it won't appear in the box tree. > > I think if you put in a normal tree it should just be > display:none. Similar to and friends. No re

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On 2/12/13 1:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: Not given the flattened tree construction algorithm I last saw... Am I just missing something? Right, because it's not an element yet, and thus can't appear in the tree like all the other elements do. Once it becomes an element, I presume it would.

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Sorry, my mistake. My point is that it won't appear in the box tree. I think if you put in a normal tree it should just be display:none. Similar to and friends. No reason for its descendants to show up. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/11/13 7:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> If it's an element and thus has an effect on styling, I presume it >> would appear in the final flattened tree. > > Not given the flattened tree construction algorithm I last saw... Am I just > mi

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

There is also a discussion taking place in the jQuery bug tracker [1] related to issues arising from shadow roots not being elements. [1] http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/13342 On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Right now, the shadow root inside a component isn't an element,

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On 2/11/13 7:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: If it's an element and thus has an effect on styling, I presume it would appear in the final flattened tree. Not given the flattened tree construction algorithm I last saw... Am I just missing something? (But given the styling I suggest, it wouldn'

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/11/13 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I propose that we reify the shadow root into an element, but default >> it to "display: contents;" > > Why does this part matter? > >> in th

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On 2/11/13 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: I propose that we reify the shadow root into an element, but default it to "display: contents;" Why does this part matter? in the UA stylesheet. That way it has no layout effect by default It

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Right now, the shadow root inside a component isn't an element, so it > can't host styles, etc. This makes a few things weird, though. > > For example, it means that it's non-trivial to get at the style of > text nodes directly inside the s