Skip to content

RFC: Exporting IDs from shadow roots for cross-root ARIA#204

Merged
behowell merged 7 commits intoWICG:gh-pagesfrom
behowell:exportid-explainer
Sep 22, 2023
Merged

RFC: Exporting IDs from shadow roots for cross-root ARIA#204
behowell merged 7 commits intoWICG:gh-pagesfrom
behowell:exportid-explainer

Conversation

@behowell
Copy link
Collaborator

@behowell behowell commented Sep 5, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Note: This is a rewrite of my earlier RFC: Element Handles for Cross-root ARIA, based on discussions with @alice. This proposal is similar, but uses the element's ID as the public name, rather than inventing a new concept like a handle.

Exported IDs are a way to refer to elements inside a shadow tree from an ID reference attribute like aria-labelledby or for, while preserving shadow DOM encapsulation. There is a new attribute exportid to mark an element as having its ID exported from the shadow root, and a new syntax to refer to the element from outside the shadow root: for="host::id(child)". For example, to apply a label to an element inside a shadow tree:

<label for="x-input-1::id(input-2)">Example Label</label>
<x-input id="x-input-1">
  #shadowRoot
  | <input id="input-2" exportid />
</x-input>

There is also a new attribute useids to allow referring to elements outside of the shadow tree. More details are in the RFC.

The full proposal is in this PR, and you can see a formatted version here:

📜 Exporting IDs from shadow roots for cross-root ARIA

I'd really appreciate any feedback and comments! You can leave comments directly on the .md file in this PR.

Special thanks to @alice for the detailed feedback on the previous proposal, which has led to this proposal. Also, thanks to @nolanlawson, @Westbrook, and @EisenbergEffect for feedback on the previous proposal.

@behowell behowell self-assigned this Sep 5, 2023
@behowell behowell mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2023
Closed
@behowell
Copy link
Collaborator Author

behowell commented Sep 11, 2023

Please see the discussion on the previous proposal #200 for more background.

@behowell behowell mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2023
Open
@behowell behowell mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2023
Closed
alice
alice approved these changes Sep 22, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@alice alice left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 from me - really excited to continue to develop these ideas, especially in conjunction with some kind of semantic delegate concept.

@behowell behowell merged commit 06c9106 into WICG:gh-pages Sep 22, 2023
@behowell
Copy link
Collaborator Author

behowell commented Sep 22, 2023

Thank you -- I've merged this draft of the explainer. If anyone has further comments or suggestions, please log an issue or PR. Thanks!

@nolanlawson
Copy link
Collaborator

nolanlawson commented Sep 22, 2023

Apologies for not taking a look earlier. I've read through the current spec, and everything looks great to me. Reusing id makes sense, since otherwise id is only meaningful inside of the shadow root, so component authors are free to rename it as they wish. The concepts of "forwarding," "using," and "exporting" also make sense (although forwardids seems most analogous to exportparts, but the names can always be bikeshedded later).

To me, this proposal ticks all the boxes while handling various edge cases (declarative format, no bottleneck effect, can rename IDs pointing in or out), so I'd really love to see browser vendors start to take a stab at it. Amazing work!!

@alice
Copy link
Member

alice commented Sep 23, 2023

although forwardids seems most analogous to exportparts, but the names can always be bikeshedded later

Yeah, it's tricky to name because exportids is much too close to exportid, and reexportids was ... a bit of a mouthful :)

I think if we wanted to name it exportids (and useids to be importids, say), we'd need to come up with a different name for exportid, which is another whole can of worms.

@behowell behowell mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@alice alice alice approved these changes

Assignees

@behowell behowell

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@behowell @nolanlawson @alice