[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 78202] [Shadow]: Expose one ShadowRoot in the Elements panel

Sun Feb 19 23:55:25 PST 2012

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78202

MORITA Hajime <morrita at google.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |morrita at google.com

--- Comment #3 from MORITA Hajime <morrita at google.com>  2012-02-19 23:55:25 PST ---
Interesting point. We should definitely discuss this.

> • When multiple shadow roots are present, should they be presented at the top-level or underneath a "shadows" node, eg. this:
> 
> V <html>
>     …
>     V <body>
>         V (shadows)
>             > (shadow)
>             > (shadow)
>             > (shadow)
>         > <p>"Lorem ipsum …"</p>

"shadows" sounds cool. We should have a way to hide them at once.
And "shadows" would be one os them.

> • Lastly, should the "youngest" shadow be displayed closest to the child content, or furthest away from it? 

Considering people may want to see what they see visually, yougest-first sounds viable for me.
Also, it would be great if we have some visual cue to represent which node is "distributed",
that means, a part of final composed tree. 
Ideally we should have a view for final composed tree. But it would need further investigation.

> • Should "user-agent shadows" (aka built-in shadows) be displayed in the inspector? If so, should they be presented differently somehow? Should they be displayed by default? Should there be an option not to display them? If so, where should it go?

This is a tricky bit. When people start decorating existing form controls, they would be frustrated
if we don't provide this. On the other hand, we should never allow to modify these user-agent trees.
If we can make them read-only. it looks ideal for me.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.webkit.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.