Summary: | Decide on node type for ShadowRoot | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner> | ||||||
Component: | DOM | Assignee: | Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner> | ||||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | abarth, ap, dglazkov, dominicc, eric, morrita, webkit.review.bot | ||||||
Priority: | P2 | ||||||||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | All | ||||||||
Bug Depends on: | |||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 48698, 54179 | ||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Roland Steiner
2011-04-15 15:39:41 PDT
Let's just call it SHADOW_ROOT. That sounds straightforward. As it so happens, I already have a stashed CL with that exact name... :) Just need to re-land the ShadowRoot patch first. Would we expose this to JavaScript as a constant on Node? Node.SHADOW_ROOT_NODE? Good question - I intended not to, to minimize user-visible changes, but perhaps we have to (for inspector, for example)? At this point, let's not worry about JS constants. Created attachment 90456 [details]
Patch
Comment on attachment 90456 [details]
Patch
nifty.
Created attachment 90552 [details]
patch, cleanup, added WebKit parts
New patch, including cleanup after Dominics patch remarks, and added bits for Source/WebKit.
Comment on attachment 90552 [details]
patch, cleanup, added WebKit parts
even niftier.
Committed r84520: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/84520> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/84520 might have broken Qt Linux ARMv7 Release and Qt Windows 32-bit Debug |