On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > > Maybe it's time to reconsider if ShadowRoot should be an element rather > than > > a DocumentFragment again? > Actually, that's the first thing I said to Elliott when I saw his mail. Then he turned to me and said: remember all the serialization crap we sifted through to finally reach the conclusion that ShadowRoot as element is a bad idea? At which it all paged in ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0356.html), and I convulsed on the floor from the standards-discussion equivalent of the brain freeze. > > Either that or let it have its own node type if it's going to be > incompatible with DocumentFragment in terms of behavior. Alternatively > we could add more hidden state such as "host" which we added for > <template>, but that's not exactly great. > There's something to that. ShadowRoot is more like Document than a DocumentFragment. :DG<
