WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED INVALID
76358
[Refactoring] ShadowRoot should be under html/shadow
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76358
Summary
[Refactoring] ShadowRoot should be under html/shadow
Hajime Morrita
Reported
2012-01-15 20:45:58 PST
Because it is a part of HTML shadow DOM spec, this should be under html/shadow. We have some part of its implementation under dom though, because Element attachment process depends on it. My plan is to split dom/ShadowRoot to dom/ShadowRootBase and html/ShadowRoot.
Attachments
Patch
(43.03 KB, patch)
2012-01-15 22:32 PST
,
Hajime Morrita
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Show Obsolete
(1)
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Hajime Morrita
Comment 1
2012-01-15 22:32:06 PST
Created
attachment 122594
[details]
Patch
Hajime Morrita
Comment 2
2012-01-15 22:33:07 PST
Hi Dimitri, could you take a look? I'm going to add an idl against this html/shadow/ShadowRoot.
Dimitri Glazkov (Google)
Comment 3
2012-01-17 19:18:54 PST
(In reply to
comment #0
)
> Because it is a part of HTML shadow DOM spec, this should be under html/shadow. > We have some part of its implementation under dom though, because Element attachment process depends on it. > My plan is to split dom/ShadowRoot to dom/ShadowRootBase and html/ShadowRoot.
Is this really necessary? I think it's fine to have DOM objects under dom/. There are already plenty of examples. It feels like we're just splitting classes for no good reason.
Hajime Morrita
Comment 4
2012-01-17 21:02:41 PST
> Is this really necessary? I think it's fine to have DOM objects under dom/. There are already plenty of examples. It feels like we're just splitting classes for no good reason.
I originally worried about layering violation. But yes, there are many other classes doing that. I'm closing this.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug