Does this support the previously discussed mechanism of allowing either public or private components? I'm not able to tell from the referenced sections.
- Maciej On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@chromium.org> wrote: > As of http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/0714c60f265d, there's now an > API to traverse the shadow trees: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#api-shadow-aware-shadow-root > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#api-html-shadow-element-older-shadow-root > > Please let me know if I goofed anything up. File bugs or yell at me. > > :DG< > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@chromium.org> > wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On 11/8/12 9:28 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: > >> > >> If you're worried about malicious attacks on your widget, shadows being > >> private is not enough. You need a whole new scripting context. > > > > Er... yes, you do. Do widgets not get that? If not, that's pretty > > broken... > > Having a separate scripting context is certainly useful for a certain > class of widgets (see Like/+1 button discussion). That's why we have > this whole notion of the "isolated" shadow trees. This is also a > fundamental requirement for enabling UA controls to be built with > script (I _just_ had a discussion with a fellow WebKit engineer who > asked for that). > > However, for a large class of use cases, mostly represented by the > libraries/frameworks, the separate scripting context is an unnecessary > barrier. Libraries like bootstrap, quickui, and x-tags are eager to > start using shadow DOM to delineate lightweight, purely functional > boundaries between composable bits in the same document. For these > developers, where things like: > a) examining (and sometimes modifying), say a currently selected tab > in an tab manager; > b) having a central state stored in the document; > c) nesting and reusing bits across different libraries; > are all expected and counted upon. Adding a scripting context boundary > here is just a "WTF!" stumbling block. > > :DG< >