Shadow DOM and <script>

[annevk]

(Since the terminology discussion around Shadow DOM is not making fast progress, my idea is that for now I'll try to write some ideas down in individual issues to later be merged into the specification.)

<script> elements will run when inserted if they have a host-including inclusive ancestor that is a document.

currentScript on document and shadow roots will only point to <script> elements that are descendants and return null otherwise. (Existing scripts expecting currentScript to always be them might have to be updated for this.) An alternative here is that only "closed" shadow roots have an exclusive currentScript and that otherwise both that on the document and of the shadow root work. Given how much properties leak the shadow root already that might be okay too?

Anything else?

Paging @hayatoito @smaug---- @rniwa.

[annevk]

(We need to define "shadow-host-including inclusive ancestor" since obviously a <script> in a <template> must not execute.)

[smaug----]

currentScript on document and shadow roots will only point to <script> elements that are descendants and return null otherwise

Sounds good to me.

I wonder how beforescriptexecute and afterscriptexecute should behave. Those shouldn't cross tree boundaries. So I guess 'scoped flag' should be set when dispatching those events.

[hayatoito]

currentScript on document and shadow roots will only point to <script> elements that are descendants and return null otherwise

Sounds good to me.

I wonder how beforescriptexecute and afterscriptexecute should behave. Those shouldn't cross tree boundaries. So I guess 'scoped flag' should be set when dispatching those events.

Makes sense. Let me update the spec.

[domenic]

Hmm, I guess this got closed because the original post of the PR said "fixes #762", even though I changed the commit message to no longer say that. Reopening, since we still have to make the "load" event scoped.