23839 2013-11-15 19:59:46 +0000 [Custom]: Template document should not share registry with its document 2014-05-09 19:44:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 14968 1 dglazkov dglazkov adamk dominicc mrbkap sjmiles public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 96380 0 dglazkov 2013-11-15 19:59:46 +0000 This was brought up by the Polymer team. In their custom elements, they have to special-case custom element being in a template and short-circuit their "created" callbacks to provide impression of "inertness". Also brought up here: http://techblog.ironfroggy.com/2013/11/5-reasons-web-components-arent-ready.html (see missing item 3). This seems like a common pattern, and it's easily rectified by removing the line in spec where we share the registry with the template document. 96381 1 dglazkov 2013-11-15 20:01:08 +0000 The effect of this change would be that the elements are never upgraded or have their callbacks fired while in templates. 96477 2 dominicc 2013-11-18 23:54:10 +0000 Two questions: 1. The link mentions in Comment 1 mentions initializers running in templates; this proposal is to not share a registration context at all and hence not run any callbacks. Is not doing any prototype swizzling/callbacks just the logical consequence of not running the initializer? 2. If the registration context is not shared, does the template document get a blank registration context ('register' will work when used on a template document) or not? ('register' will throw when used on a template document.) 96478 3 dglazkov 2013-11-18 23:59:56 +0000 (In reply to Dominic Cooney from comment #2) > Two questions: > > 1. The link mentions in Comment 1 mentions initializers running in > templates; this proposal is to not share a registration context at all and > hence not run any callbacks. Is not doing any prototype swizzling/callbacks > just the logical consequence of not running the initializer? Right. > 2. If the registration context is not shared, does the template document get > a blank registration context ('register' will work when used on a template > document) or not? ('register' will throw when used on a template document.) Just a blank registration context. Technically, it's not blank. When we spec the Registry object API, we'll say that at the time of creating a template document, we pour all of the built-in HTML element definitions into this context (just like with a Document created with XHR). The authors should be able to do the same type of sharing with their elements using that API. 96522 4 dglazkov 2013-11-19 17:50:02 +0000 https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/1d4c8e006a7b07c1f5ad36ed029505b37d41423f 96609 5 adamk 2013-11-20 22:50:34 +0000 As currently specced in HTML, <template> doesn't always create a new Document for its content fragment; if its ownerDocument lacks a defaultView, it assumes it's fine to re-use that one. This handles the case: <template> <template> ... so that each <template> doesn't cause the creation of a new Document. However, with this spec change, it's now possible to see different Custom Element behavior in a <template> that happens to be in a Document created via document.implementation.createHTMLDocument(), since: doc = document.implementation.createHTMLDocument('title') template = doc.createElement('template') template.ownerDocument === template.content.ownerDocument In such documents, custom elements inside templates will be "alive". The right fix is likely to tighten <template>'s requirements for when it will re-use its ownerDocument, i.e., only re-use ownerDocument if it's actually the content owner document of another <template>. This requires tagging template content documents upon creation. I intend to file the above against the HTML spec, but I wanted to have an explanation written down here, too, since it was this bug report that requires the change to <template>'s behavior. 101067 6 dominicc 2014-02-20 23:30:29 +0000 I think that change might have gone too far, now template documents don't have a registry at all. I think they should have a registry, but it should not be shared with the main document. 105482 7 dglazkov 2014-05-08 21:02:32 +0000 (In reply to Dominic Cooney from comment #6) > I think that change might have gone too far, now template documents don't > have a registry at all. I think they should have a registry, but it should > not be shared with the main document. PTAL? https://github.com/dglazkov/webcomponents/pull/1 105566 8 dglazkov 2014-05-09 19:44:35 +0000 https://github.com/dglazkov/webcomponents/commit/7476e1ce7d9e711375c7e8c12ece19518d2e958a