This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 22898 - [Shadow]: Consider defining inertness in terms of the composed tree
Summary: [Shadow]: Consider defining inertness in terms of the composed tree
Status: RESOLVED MOVED
Alias: None
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HISTORICAL - Component Model (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dimitri Glazkov
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
URL: http://jsbin.com/igabal/1/edit
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 14978
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-08-08 02:11 UTC by Matt Falkenhagen
Modified: 2014-01-24 06:26 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Matt Falkenhagen 2013-08-08 02:11:25 UTC
In the HTML spec, any node that is not an ancestor or descendant of the active modal dialog is marked inert.[1]

It seems the ancestor/descendant relation should be based on the composed tree. Otherwise, children that have been transposed into a modal <dialog>'s subtree are considered inert, although they are rendered as if they are real children of the <dialog>. This is surprising to the user interacting with the dialog.

I'm not sure whether ancestor/descendant should be clarified in the HTML spec or the Shadow DOM spec, and whether it should be clarified just for modal dialogs/inertness or more generally.

See also https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=269842

[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/editing.html#inert
Comment 1 Hayato Ito 2013-08-08 02:15:43 UTC
Let me quote the my comment form another thread for reference :)

> In the current Shadow DOM spec, we haven't changed the meaning of ancestors/descendants. It's a relationship in a node tree.
>
> If we'd express a relationship in the composed tree, I am afraid we must say explicitly 'ancestors in the composed tree'.
>
> As for inertness, I've recently tried to re-define 'inertness' in the Shadow DOM spec, using the concept of the composed tree:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#focus-navigation
>
> But I am not confident about the definition of 'inertness', which is now only used in explaining 'Focus Navigation'.
Comment 2 Matt Falkenhagen 2013-10-11 03:04:42 UTC
I'm not sure where the right place to spec this is. The HTML spec defines inert subtrees but there are no references to Shadow DOM in that spec.
Comment 3 Matt Falkenhagen 2014-01-24 06:21:32 UTC
Since Shadow DOM hasn't changed the meaning of DOM ancestors/descendants, this bug probably won't be resolved by the Shadow DOM spec. I'll move this bug to the HTML spec.

I also think there's some confusion because the HTML and Shadow DOM spec both define the term "inert".
Comment 4 Matt Falkenhagen 2014-01-24 06:26:40 UTC
Moved to https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24379