Re: [shadow-dom] ::before/after on shadow hosts

> ::before and ::after are basically *siblings* of the shadow host,

That's not a correct sentence. ::before and ::after shouldn't be a siblings
of the shadow host.
I just wanted to say that #2 is the desired behavior.


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> wrote:

> The spec [1] also says:
>
> > ::before
> > Represents a styleable child pseudo-element immediately before the
> originating element’s actual content.
> > ::after
> > Represents a styleable child pseudo-element immediately before the
> originating element’s actual content.
>
> It sounds to me that ::before and ::after are basically *siblings* of the
> shadow host, instead of children. I think that should be the intended
> behavior.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-pseudo-4/#generated-content
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:33 PM Erik Isaksen <nevraeka@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> #2 for sure
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 4:52 PM Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was recently pointed to this StackOverflow thread
>>> <
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31094454/does-the-shadow-dom-replace-before-and-after/
>>> >
>>> which asks what happens to ::before and ::after on shadow hosts, as
>>> it's not clear from the specs.  I had to admit that I hadn't thought
>>> of this corner-case, and it wasn't clear what the answer was!
>>>
>>> In particular, there seem to be two reasonable options:
>>>
>>> 1. ::before and ::after are *basically* children of the host element,
>>> so they get suppressed when the shadow contents are displayed
>>>
>>> 2. ::before and ::after aren't *really* children of the host element,
>>> so they still show up before/after the shadow contents.
>>>
>>> According to the SO thread (I haven't tested this myself), Firefox and
>>> Chrome both settled on #2.  I'm fine to spec this in the Scoping
>>> module, I just wanted to be sure this was the answer we wanted.
>>>
>>> ~TJ
>>>
>>>