16599 2012-04-02 09:16:12 +0000 [Shadow]: Event Dispatch on non-distributed light children. 2012-05-08 01:19:49 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 14978 1 hayato dglazkov public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 66328 0 hayato 2012-04-02 09:16:12 +0000 Clarify what is an expected behavior when an event happens on non-distributed light children. Suppose the following tree: <div id='shadow-host-A'> <shadow-root> <div id='shadow-root-child'> ...there is no <content> elements in the shadow root. <div id='light-child-1'> <div id='light-child-2'> #shadow-host-A has a shadow root, but there is no <content> element in there. So #light-child-1 and #light-child-2 don't appear in ComposedShadowTree. ComposedShadowTree is: <div id='shadow-host-A'> <div id='shadow-root-child'> And suppose an event happens on #light-child-1 (e.g. document.getElementById('light-child-1').focus()). What is expected behavior?. In algorithm of calculating adjustedParentNode used in section 6, it's not clear what is the result of 'adjustedParentNode of #light-child-1'. In my opinion, adjustedParentNode(light-chlild-1) should be 'null' instead of '#shadow-host-A' in this case. What do you think about? 66330 1 hayato 2012-04-02 09:39:19 +0000 Let me rethink about it.. 'adjustedParentNode(non-distributed-light-child) should be null' might cause undesirable side effects on many other parts. I should be careful about it. I just would like to know what is expected result of adjustedParentNode(non-distributed-light-child). (In reply to comment #0) > In algorithm of calculating adjustedParentNode used in section 6, it's not > clear what is the result of 'adjustedParentNode of #light-child-1'. > In my opinion, adjustedParentNode(light-chlild-1) should be 'null' instead of > '#shadow-host-A' in this case. What do you think about? 67433 2 dglazkov 2012-05-07 21:03:00 +0000 Non-distributed children should behave as typical children of the shadow host, unencumbered by shadow DOM in any way. Sounds about right? If so, will spec that way. 67466 3 hayato 2012-05-08 01:19:49 +0000 Yes, I've changed my mind since I filed this bug. We can close this bug and mark it WONTFIX. The work-in-progress idea already treats non-distributed-light-child as typical children of shadow host. https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/1PY7KkTRI-doU9Hew3Mud9JBgjj5xtVqH8sY0Ui305nw/edit (In reply to comment #2) > Non-distributed children should behave as typical children of the shadow host, > unencumbered by shadow DOM in any way. Sounds about right? If so, will spec > that way.