Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

[smaug]

This is basically an after the fact notification that
we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1].
While doing this, the v0 implementation, which was never exposed to the web, will be removed.
v1 is luckily way simpler, so this all should simplify various bits in DOM.

FF60 might be quite realistic target to ship this, but there will be intent-to-ship
before that.

Many parts of the spec (DOM) is stable, but there are still couple of tricky issues in HTML, like
session history handling with shadow DOM. However Chrome and Safari are shipping v1 already.

Devtools will be able to see into the Shadow DOM.

Currently the work is under the old pref "dom.webcomponents.enabled"
but perhaps we should change that, so that people who were testing v0 don't get
v1 APIs.


-Olli


[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1405934

[smaug]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205323

[James Graham]

Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests for this feature, and
have we assessed whether they are sufficiently complete to give us
confidence of interop?

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez]

On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote:
> On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote:

> Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests for this feature, and
> have we assessed whether they are sufficiently complete to give us
> confidence of interop?

There are some web platform tests, but I'm moderately sure that the
rendering bits of them are not quite enough, since they're quite basic.

I also know that Chromium and WebKit have tons of crashtests and tests
for dynamic changes of the page that we'd definitely benefit from.

I know there's an effort in Chromium to upstream LayoutTests to WPT. The
Shadow DOM v1 LayoutTests would be extremely helpful to have upstream IMO.

-- Emilio

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emi...@crisal.io>
wrote:

> On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote:
> > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote:

> > Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests for this feature, and
> > have we assessed whether they are sufficiently complete to give us
> > confidence of interop?
>
> There are some web platform tests, but I'm moderately sure that the
> rendering bits of them are not quite enough, since they're quite basic.
>
> I also know that Chromium and WebKit have tons of crashtests and tests
> for dynamic changes of the page that we'd definitely benefit from.
>
> I know there's an effort in Chromium to upstream LayoutTests to WPT. The
> Shadow DOM v1 LayoutTests would be extremely helpful to have upstream IMO.
>

What kind of timeline are we talking about here? Are any of the tests more
valuable than others, such that you'd import them into Gecko directly from
Chromium if they aren't upstreamed to wpt?

+Hayato Ito <hay...@chromium.org> FYI.

(Reposted after subscribing.)

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez]

On 11/28/2017 10:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emi...@crisal.io
> <mailto:emi...@crisal.io>> wrote:
>
> On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote:
> > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote:

> > Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests for this
> feature, and
> > have we assessed whether they are sufficiently complete to give us
> > confidence of interop?
>
> There are some web platform tests, but I'm moderately sure that the
> rendering bits of them are not quite enough, since they're quite basic.
>
> I also know that Chromium and WebKit have tons of crashtests and tests
> for dynamic changes of the page that we'd definitely benefit from.
>
> I know there's an effort in Chromium to upstream LayoutTests to WPT. The
> Shadow DOM v1 LayoutTests would be extremely helpful to have
> upstream IMO.
>
>
> What kind of timeline are we talking about here? Are any of the tests
> more valuable than others, such that you'd import them into Gecko
> directly from Chromium if they aren't upstreamed to wpt?

Yeah, so.. The timeline is FF60, so it'd be before March 2018 if I got
the math right.

And yeah, I plan to prioritize the tests. The most interesting ones for
me are the CSS / rendering ones... In case this isn't in the timeline
for the Chromium exports, I'd try to first export to WPT myself, or
otherwise import into Gecko (but ideally the first).

I'm happy to help out exporting them or what not if needed.

-- Emilio

> +Hayato Ito <mailto:hay...@chromium.org> FYI.
>
> (Reposted after subscribing.)

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emi...@crisal.io>
wrote:

>
>
> On 11/28/2017 10:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emi...@crisal.io
> > <mailto:emi...@crisal.io>> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote:
> > > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote:

> > > Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests for this
> > feature, and
> > > have we assessed whether they are sufficiently complete to give us
> > > confidence of interop?
> >
> > There are some web platform tests, but I'm moderately sure that the
> > rendering bits of them are not quite enough, since they're quite
> basic.
> >
> > I also know that Chromium and WebKit have tons of crashtests and
> tests
> > for dynamic changes of the page that we'd definitely benefit from.
> >
> > I know there's an effort in Chromium to upstream LayoutTests to WPT.
> The
> > Shadow DOM v1 LayoutTests would be extremely helpful to have
> > upstream IMO.
> >
> >
> > What kind of timeline are we talking about here? Are any of the tests
> > more valuable than others, such that you'd import them into Gecko
> > directly from Chromium if they aren't upstreamed to wpt?
>
> Yeah, so.. The timeline is FF60, so it'd be before March 2018 if I got
> the math right.
>
> And yeah, I plan to prioritize the tests. The most interesting ones for
> me are the CSS / rendering ones... In case this isn't in the timeline
> for the Chromium exports, I'd try to first export to WPT myself, or
> otherwise import into Gecko (but ideally the first).
>
> I'm happy to help out exporting them or what not if needed.
>

Do you mean that you'd move them within the Chromium repo to export them to
wpt? I can only assume that would be most welcome if done with care.

[d.gram...@gmail.com]

Is this just shadow dom or there will be also support for custom elements?

Thanks

[Andrew Overholt]

Custom Elements is being tracked separately. Watch for an intent email
regarding them soon.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:05 AM <d.gram...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this just shadow dom or there will be also support for custom elements?
>
> Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emi...@crisal.io>

wrote:

> On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote:
> > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote:

> > Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests for this feature, and
> > have we assessed whether they are sufficiently complete to give us
> > confidence of interop?
>
> There are some web platform tests, but I'm moderately sure that the
> rendering bits of them are not quite enough, since they're quite basic.
>
> I also know that Chromium and WebKit have tons of crashtests and tests
> for dynamic changes of the page that we'd definitely benefit from.
>
> I know there's an effort in Chromium to upstream LayoutTests to WPT. The
> Shadow DOM v1 LayoutTests would be extremely helpful to have upstream IMO.
>

What kind of timeline are we talking about here? Are any of the tests more
valuable than others, such that you'd import them into Gecko directly from
Chromium if they aren't upstreamed to wpt?

+Hayato Ito <hay...@chromium.org> FYI.