-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
verify / ensure proper serialization of shadow roots excluding closed shadow roots from getInnerHTML
#16
Comments
thescientist13
changed the title
verify / ensure proper serialization of shadow roots excluding closed shadow roots from
verify / ensure proper serialization of shadow roots excluding closed shadow roots from May 1, 2022
getInnerHTML
?getInnerHTML
5 tasks
This was referenced Jun 5, 2022
thescientist13
added
question
Further information is requested
enhancement
Improvement to existing functionality
and removed
feature
New feature or request
labels
Jun 10, 2022
This was referenced Jun 11, 2022
This was
linked to
pull requests
Dec 2, 2024
Open
Open
12 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Type of Change
Summary
Just want to make sure I'm properly handling
HTMLElement.getInnerHTML
for?Details
Coming out of #19 and made a repo for testing, since it appears I might be taking some serious liberties with the implementation here. 😅
https://github.com/thescientist13/get-inner-html
Somewhat related to this, not sure if there is value in having a way to opt-out at the top level for this, like if your page is a custom element? Perhaps you want your page as light DOM, but still keep the shadow DOM for all nested children?
edit: to the above, I just recently pulled a feature called
lightMode
since I realized a better way to output non shadow content was to just let user's opt-out by usinginnerHTML
. But in relation to this, if say someone is using a third party library and wants that library rendered without Shadow DOM (obviously mileage will vary vastly on this from lib to lib) but then that's a way to bring that config back?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: