W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Shadow DOM Encapsulation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:10:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC3gEdeEzGSjkJpw919OV_wtmB4NCECpZvdQrGRZndZUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Linss, Peter <peter.linss@hp.com> wrote:
> Please don't get hung up on this bit. There's nothing in my proposal of exposing component pieces as pseudo-elements that requires changes to the way current pseudo-elements are handled. This was more of an aside about an implementation detail from Gecko code once-upon-a-time. Gecko treated pseudo-elements as logical constructs within the parent, that's all I was getting at.

The reason I'm getting hung up on it is because I'm strongly against
anything that makes some pseudo-elements work differently,
syntax-wise, than others.  I think the way we handle pseudo-elements
today was a minor legacy mistake, but that's not something we can fix
now, and it means that imbuing pseudo-elements with more structure is
tricky/confusing to deal with.

Let's just do named combinators and keep everything sane. ^_^

~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 23:11:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC