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 16710 - [Shadow]: Clarify lower-boundary encapsulation existence for shadow insertion point
Summary: [Shadow]: Clarify lower-boundary encapsulation existence for shadow insertion...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HISTORICAL - Component Model (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dimitri Glazkov
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 15480
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2012-04-12 07:44 UTC by Hayato Ito
Modified: 2012-05-15 03:26 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Hayato Ito 2012-04-12 07:44:52 UTC 
Is there any *boundary* concept between <shadow> insertionPoint and its olderShadowRoot (and its children)?

In current spec, I cannot read that there is a boundary between them. But I am wondering whether it is okay or not that nodes in olderShadowRoots happen to see any nodes in youngerShadowRoot?
For me, it's similar to the situation where a ShadowHost cannot see any noes in its shadowRoot in any cases.

This question arises from my mental model that a concept of multiple shadow roots is like nested shadow roots, where the younger shadow root is attached to the older shadowRoot. The OlderShadowRoot acts like a shadowHost for the youngerShadowRoot.
Comment 1 Dimitri Glazkov 2012-05-14 18:53:13 UTC 
There is definitely a boundary. Since "shadow insertion point" is just a type of an insertion point, the lower-boundary encapsulation rules apply just the same. Does this seem reasonable? Should I clarify this in the spec?
Comment 2 Hayato Ito 2012-05-15 03:26:10 UTC 
Okay. That makes sense. <shadow> is just an InsertionPoint and there is a lower boundary.
We can close this bug as WONTFIX. Thank you!