- From: John Reeves via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 23:33:19 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> They didn't change the definition of font foo, tho. They added a brand new font foo within their shadow tree, and then inherited a completely unrelated font foo from their ancestor tree. All I'm saying is that this is only one way of looking at it. I.e., what's being inherited? The reference to the global font definition, or looked at another way, the name "foo" is being inherited and defining a new one changes what "foo" refers to. But I agree, inheriting the font definition that was referred to in the global scope is easier to understand, and improves encapsulation. I'm still used to thinking in non-shadow dom terms where that problem was always solved with a *crosses fingers* unique namespace. -- GitHub Notification of comment by vectorjohn Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1995#issuecomment-495420944 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2019 23:33:21 UTC