[Bug 28591] [Shadow]: Figure out a good replacement for /deep/ in testing scenarios

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28591

Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hayato@chromium.org

--- Comment #6 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---

(In reply to Tab Atkins Jr. from comment #5)
> (In reply to Elliott Sprehn from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Anne from comment #3)
> > > Note that an alternative is that we introduce .deepQuery() or some such.
> > 
> > deepQuery is not enough, you don't want to match a descendant selector
> > across a ShadowRoot boundary since ".a .b" means something really different.
> > You'd still need a special combinator to signal where the scope crossing
> > should be in the selector expression.
> > 
> > ex.
> > .panel .image
> > 
> > All images inside panels contained in a single scope.
> > 
> > .panel /deep/ .image
> > 
> > All images anywhere below a panel, even if they're inside a nested widget.
> > 
> > This is important because it maintains the "don't accidentally cross a
> > boundary" principle.
> 
> Yeah, trying to move the shadow-crossing quality to the core of the method
> doesn't work.  It's much less flexible, as you note, and doesn't compose
> with anything else similar.  The correct approach is to just embrace the
> "static profile" of selectors
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors/#static-profile> and leave /deep/ there. 
> (Or >>>, as it's now called.)

Is there any existing clients who use *static-profile*?
Does it mean '/deep/' can be used in particular APIs?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 08:43:58 UTC