W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: ::distributed and relative selectors (Was Re: [shadowdom]: Using :root to specify the insertion point in ::distributed)

From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:20:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHnmYQ-U4GHX61JfD7wSVxFqm5ddtfpe8FXjD_RUrK8Z6iD+Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:12 AM, fantasai
> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> > I don't see how using :root solves the problem any more than disallowing
> > :scope. If there's no reason for :scope to be part of this syntax, let's
> > just say it matches nothing.
>
> We can't just say that, though, because when you absolutize "> div",
> you end up with ":scope > div".  That :scope has to match *something*.
>  It's just that the "something" can't be a real element.


I find it odd that

::distributed(:scope)

matches less stuff than

::distributed(:scope > div)

despite the fact that the latter is more detailed.

Wouldn't it be better to say that :root matches, not the Shadow Root, but
its children? The rest can be done with sugar introducing :root (although I
prefer a diet low in sugar, I appreciate the hardship some people find
typing five characters like :-r-o-o-t.)

Dominic
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 01:21:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC