Fwiw, I'm still following this thread, but so far Scott G. has been saying everything I would say (good on ya, brother :P).
>> My understanding is that you have to explicitly ask to walk into the shadow, so this wouldn't happen accidentally. Can someone please confirm or deny this? << Confirmed. The encapsulation barriers are there to prevent you from stumbling into shadow. On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Scott González <scott.gonza...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bronislav Klučka < > bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com> wrote: >> >> On 7.3.2013 19:54, Scott González wrote: >>> >>> Who is killing anything? >>> >> Hi, given >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webapps/** >> 2013JanMar/0676.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0676.html> >> I've misunderstood your point as advocating against Shadow altogether. >> > > Ok, good to know that this was mostly just a miscommunication. > > > >> 2nd is is practical: not having to care about the internals, so I do not >> break it by accident from outside. If the only way to work with internals >> is by explicit request for internals and then working with them, but >> without the ability to breach the barrier accidentally, without the >> explicit request directly on the shadow host, this concern is satisfied and >> yes, there will be no clashes except for control naming. >> > > My understanding is that you have to explicitly ask to walk into the > shadow, so this wouldn't happen accidentally. Can someone please confirm or > deny this? >