2 ms·
I like the idea of web components, but feels like a mistake to have welded shadow dom to the implementation (or at least the default way they are implemented/de
by gedy 3y ago
I like the idea of web components, but feels like a mistake to have welded shadow dom to the implementation (or at least the default way they are implemented/described/advertised).
The vast majority of devs I've worked with who try and use them are basically using them like JS frameworks or HTML templates in normal apps.
Shadow DOM is just really a poor fit for this type of use IMHO and results in practical issues like the OP.
- zaphar 3y agoShadow Dom is completely optional and you can leave it out if you don't need an encapsulated DOM at runtime. It's not at all welded to the implementation.
- gedy 3y ago> Shadow Dom is completely optional and you can leave it out if you don't need an encapsulated DOM at runtime. It's not at all welded to the implementation. That is partly my point then - every time I've run into this with devs, the defaults, docs, comments, etc assume Shadow DOM is needed/important and then things like the OP bite them.
- spankalee 3y agoShadow DOM is amazing - it enables interoperable composition and has much safer encapsulation again random styles.