5 ms·

except you can't use it as a normal component, you can't adjust its CSS normally, you have to `&::part()` your way around and hope for the best. Accessing throu

by jdmg94 3y ago

except you can't use it as a normal component, you can't adjust its CSS normally, you have to `&::part()` your way around and hope for the best. Accessing through refs is a complete blackbox. I work with web components daily and it is a hindrance to my daily work, it is very common for people at my org to just re-write a component instead of using its web component version.

mmis1000 3y ago
I also wonder about this. The webcomponent make the style completely immutable unless you add part selector specifically… how on the earth this is even useful? Imagine using an ui library that you can't change the style at all. That sounds like a total joke to me. That isn't even a sane default that is useful to most web folks that make page base on layout that designers gave.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  I find it very useful for embedding interactive demos on my blog that are mostly independent of the styles for the rest of the site (for example, the article here). But for what it’s worth, there is discussion of an “open-stylable” shadow DOM mode that addresses those concerns: https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/909 https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/909
  - EnergyAmy 3y ago
    Shadow DOM was a mistake. It's a 0.1 version that was unfortunately pushed out as a completed standard. Basic stuff is missing like your link. The entire thing should be deprecated and we should start from scratch. If you want to embed something that doesn't use your page's styles, we already have iframes. Shadow DOM is just a half-assed recreation of that.
    - jakelazaroff 3y ago
      How would you build, say, a component library like Shoelace [1] using iframes? [1] https://shoelace.style/ https://shoelace.style/
      - earthboundkid 3y ago
        You could use srcdoc="..." to simulate a component, except that iframes don't have automatic height adjustment, which is the thing they should actually fix. In any event, shadow DOM is just a worse version of scope selectors. There's not really a good use for it now that you can just do a style reset on a donut selector inside an import layer. It can all be done declaratively with CSS instead of using an imperative JS API that has a ton of gotchas.
        jakelazaroff 3y ago
        There are a lot of things you can do with shadow DOM that you can’t with iframes or scope/donut selectors: - transclude other elements (technically you can with iframes, but hopefully it’s clear why making something like this breadcrumb component would be extremely awkward [1]) - control and react to the display of child elements via <slot>s - call methods on custom element objects etc etc. It’s fine if it doesn’t solve any problems you personally have, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful. [1] https://shoelace.style/components/breadcrumb https://shoelace.style/components/breadcrumb
        earthboundkid 3y ago
        Transclusion can totally be done with CSS now. That’s a donut selector. The other things are just plain old JavaScript and have nothing to do with Shadow DOM. Yes, they can be done with customElement, but they can also just be done without it.
        jakelazaroff 3y ago
        I think I’m going to bow out because it’s clear this discussion isn’t going anywhere, but you should look up what transclusion means because it makes no sense to say that you can do it in CSS.

by jdmg94 3y ago

mmis1000 3y ago

I also wonder about this. The webcomponent make the style completely immutable unless you add part selector specifically… how on the earth this is even useful? Imagine using an ui library that you can't change the style at all. That sounds like a total joke to me. That isn't even a sane default that is useful to most web folks that make page base on layout that designers gave.

jakelazaroff 3y ago
I find it very useful for embedding interactive demos on my blog that are mostly independent of the styles for the rest of the site (for example, the article here). But for what it’s worth, there is discussion of an “open-stylable” shadow DOM mode that addresses those concerns: https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/909 https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/909
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  Shadow DOM was a mistake. It's a 0.1 version that was unfortunately pushed out as a completed standard. Basic stuff is missing like your link. The entire thing should be deprecated and we should start from scratch. If you want to embed something that doesn't use your page's styles, we already have iframes. Shadow DOM is just a half-assed recreation of that.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    How would you build, say, a component library like Shoelace [1] using iframes? [1] https://shoelace.style/ https://shoelace.style/
    - earthboundkid 3y ago
      You could use srcdoc="..." to simulate a component, except that iframes don't have automatic height adjustment, which is the thing they should actually fix. In any event, shadow DOM is just a worse version of scope selectors. There's not really a good use for it now that you can just do a style reset on a donut selector inside an import layer. It can all be done declaratively with CSS instead of using an imperative JS API that has a ton of gotchas.
      - jakelazaroff 3y ago
        There are a lot of things you can do with shadow DOM that you can’t with iframes or scope/donut selectors: - transclude other elements (technically you can with iframes, but hopefully it’s clear why making something like this breadcrumb component would be extremely awkward [1]) - control and react to the display of child elements via <slot>s - call methods on custom element objects etc etc. It’s fine if it doesn’t solve any problems you personally have, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful. [1] https://shoelace.style/components/breadcrumb https://shoelace.style/components/breadcrumb
        earthboundkid 3y ago
        Transclusion can totally be done with CSS now. That’s a donut selector. The other things are just plain old JavaScript and have nothing to do with Shadow DOM. Yes, they can be done with customElement, but they can also just be done without it.
        jakelazaroff 3y ago
        I think I’m going to bow out because it’s clear this discussion isn’t going anywhere, but you should look up what transclusion means because it makes no sense to say that you can do it in CSS.