22394 2013-06-18 04:26:17 +0000 [Shadow]: [Meta] Refactor the Shadow DOM spec 2013-10-24 07:59:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 22716 1 hayato hayato dglazkov public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 89448 0 hayato 2013-06-18 04:26:17 +0000 Let me use this meta bug as a place holder to keep track of all efforts to refactor the current Shadow DOM spec. I am now writing a proposal for refactoring: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iuf2DgzwKfMTscAX_xsymO73NmZ4NVYvfyFgUU4YINo/edit?usp=sharing Let me update this bug once I can feel it's ready for a review. 89627 1 hayato 2013-06-20 04:58:30 +0000 Hi Dimitri, Could you take a look at the proposal? It's incomplete, but I'd like to know whether the strategy and technique used in the proposal is good or not at this point. Let's ignore the details for now, which I can fix that. 89659 2 dglazkov 2013-06-20 19:32:14 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > Hi Dimitri, > > Could you take a look at the proposal? > > It's incomplete, but I'd like to know whether the strategy and technique > used in the proposal is good or not at this point. > > Let's ignore the details for now, which I can fix that. I left bunches of comments. Top concern is that we should not do the refactoring as one giant patch, which means we need to take the complete proposal, and then iteratively turn the spec into the one that matches it. 89680 3 hayato 2013-06-21 06:55:20 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Hi Dimitri, > > > > Could you take a look at the proposal? > > > > It's incomplete, but I'd like to know whether the strategy and technique > > used in the proposal is good or not at this point. > > > > Let's ignore the details for now, which I can fix that. > > I left bunches of comments. Top concern is that we should not do the > refactoring as one giant patch, which means we need to take the complete > proposal, and then iteratively turn the spec into the one that matches it. That's my concern too. Since a lot of folks are referring an editor's draft directly, we should not break the *HEAD*. Let me try to update the spec iteratively as possible as we can. 89681 4 hayato 2013-06-21 07:07:40 +0000 I am feeling that it might be hard to keep the HEAD *green*. We might want to use a branch. Let me think further. (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Hi Dimitri, > > > > > > Could you take a look at the proposal? > > > > > > It's incomplete, but I'd like to know whether the strategy and technique > > > used in the proposal is good or not at this point. > > > > > > Let's ignore the details for now, which I can fix that. > > > > I left bunches of comments. Top concern is that we should not do the > > refactoring as one giant patch, which means we need to take the complete > > proposal, and then iteratively turn the spec into the one that matches it. > > That's my concern too. > Since a lot of folks are referring an editor's draft directly, we should not > break the *HEAD*. > > Let me try to update the spec iteratively as possible as we can. 95281 5 hayato 2013-10-24 07:59:27 +0000 Done.