25561 2014-05-05 20:22:56 +0000 [Explainer]: Use of template in example would result in multiple matching ID tags being generated in the DOM 2014-05-06 14:32:15 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WONTFIX http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/explainer/#lifecycle-callbacks P2 minor --- 14949 1 dcaldwell dglazkov jonas mike public-webapps public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 105070 0 dcaldwell 2014-05-05 20:22:56 +0000 In the "tick-tock-clock-template" example, id tags are used inside of the template. The intended use of this code is to make a reusable component, but reusing this template would result in multiple "hh", "sep" and "mm" tags being inserted into the DOM - something that breaks HTML standards. A fix would be to instead use another attribute, such as class. So this: <template id="tick-tock-clock-template"> <span id="hh"></span> <span id="sep">:</span> <span id="mm"></span> </template> ...becomes this: <template id="tick-tock-clock-template"> <span class="hh"></span> <span class="sep">:</span> <span class="mm"></span> </template> 105072 1 jonas 2014-05-05 20:39:08 +0000 I definitely don't think that Shadow content should end up in the document's id map. I.e. document.getElementById(x) should never return an element that is in Shadow DOM. We really have to remove the "All other HTML elements in the shadow trees must behave as if they were part of the document tree" language from the Shadow DOM spec. That's not nearly normative enough. Simply setting the "in document" flag will mean different things in different engines. I've raised this before and I'm not sure if the fix is still in progress or if people simply disagree. I've not heard anything back yet either way. 105076 2 dglazkov 2014-05-05 21:02:59 +0000 (In reply to Jonas Sicking from comment #1) > I definitely don't think that Shadow content should end up in the document's > id map. I.e. document.getElementById(x) should never return an element that > is in Shadow DOM. Right. Denny, as Jonas points out, the ids will be in a shadow tree of the element, which means that they will never collide with main document or other instances. > > We really have to remove the "All other HTML elements in the shadow trees > must behave as if they were part of the document tree" language from the > Shadow DOM spec. That's not nearly normative enough. Simply setting the "in > document" flag will mean different things in different engines. > > I've raised this before and I'm not sure if the fix is still in progress or > if people simply disagree. I've not heard anything back yet either way. Filed bug 25562. 105176 3 dcaldwell 2014-05-06 12:41:24 +0000 Will they also not collide with ID's of other elements in the shadow DOM? 105186 4 dglazkov 2014-05-06 14:32:15 +0000 (In reply to Denny Caldwell from comment #3) > Will they also not collide with ID's of other elements in the shadow DOM? Sure, but there aren't any other IDs in those shadow trees.