This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Currently <iframe>s shouldn't be loaded at all in shadow DOM, but that will probably change in bug 26365. If some pages are then loaded to a shadow iframe, should the pages end up to session history? https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#traverse-the-history-by-a-delta is the tricky part, and https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#joint-session-history in particular.
I would really like to have as little difference between an iframe in a shadow tree and a document tree as possible. For the developer, the shadow tree should walk and quack like a document tree :)
Well, integrating shadow <iframe>'s history to the rest of the page reveals information that there is an <iframe>. And especially if and when we get the proper information hiding, this will be an issue.
(In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #2) > Well, integrating shadow <iframe>'s history to the rest of the page reveals > information that there is an <iframe>. And especially if and when we get the > proper information hiding, this will be an issue. I see. Yes, this is applicable for the "closed/private" mode (bug 20144).
Not only to that, IMO. If we just randomly expose information about the shadow DOM to the outside world, what is the use of shadow DOM. I consider this similar to https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=394327 though less critical given that session history is rather odd beast anyway.
Also, I think it is more important to have consistency within shadow DOM, whether or not we're in closed/private mode, than consistency with the normal DOM.
(In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #4) > Not only to that, IMO. If we just randomly expose information about the > shadow DOM to the outside world, what is the use of shadow DOM. > > I consider this similar to > https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=394327 though less > critical given that session history is rather > odd beast anyway. I agree about the priority. As for the use of shadow DOM, I would like for us to get on the same page. I tried to write the main goal here: https://gist.github.com/dglazkov/efd2deec54f65aa86f2e. This aligns closely with the thrust of the very early explorations of the problem: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases#Layout_Manager In this perspective, exposing information or making Shadow DOM presence detectable is not as big of a concern.
Moved to https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/184