24288 2014-01-14 07:01:30 +0000 [Shadow]: Revert <shadow> element as a function call feature. 2014-05-29 07:16:44 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 22715 1 hayato hayato mike public-webapps rniwa wchen public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 98402 0 hayato 2014-01-14 07:01:30 +0000 Regarding with https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22344, it turned out that there is a kind of a technical difficulty to implement this feature correctly [1]. It might be better to revert it to the old behavior until we find a reasonable idea of the implementation. We will also remove fallback ability of <shadow> element. Child elements of <shadow> elements will be simply ignored. We preserve the usage of child elements of the <shadow> elements for the future, such as enabling new behavior later again. [1]: https://codereview.chromium.org/77863002/ 98407 1 hayato 2014-01-14 10:38:06 +0000 Committed in: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/61745e0b40c8d609ad1070e7babc7915fca637ea 104084 2 wchen 2014-04-18 19:04:23 +0000 Reverting the (In reply to Hayato Ito from comment #0) > It might be better to revert it to the old behavior until we find a > reasonable idea of the implementation. The behavior of the fix is not forward compatible with the behavior in bug 22344. > We preserve the usage of child > elements of the <shadow> elements for the future, such as enabling new > behavior later again. So we wouldn't be able to do this. ^ If the intention is strip functionality until you figure out a way to reasonably implement the <shadow> as a function call, then you'll also have to neuter <content> insertion points in older shadows. Which means bringing back: "Let POOL be an empty ordered list." in https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/61745e0b40c8d609ad1070e7babc7915fca637ea 104090 3 rniwa 2014-04-19 06:34:35 +0000 We just posted a relevant feedback in public-webapps: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014AprJun/0151.html. 106961 4 hayato 2014-05-29 07:16:44 +0000 Looks outdated. Let me close this issue. If you feel to re-open this, please file a new issue.