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

Re: [shadow-styling] First Draft of Shadow DOM Styling uploaded

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:09:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCSkmff+eL_pf9aDy=DOHtEw_HQYVhytSBm=3Yo_dLshw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 7:24 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've uploaded the first draft of Shadow DOM Styling, the spec I
>> intended to write a few weeks ago, to
>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/shadow-styling/>.
>
> I guess the difference between /shadow and /shadow-all is that /shadow only selects the top level children of the tree root (aside: "Children of the Root" sounds like a horror movie).
>
> I think it would be simpler to just use the child selector to get to the top level children. Thus,  example 1, 'x-foo /shadow > span' would select #top, and 'x-foo /shadow span' would also select #not-top.

You can't chain combinators like that.

> I guess this means I'm just seeing <"shadow-tree"> more like an unstylable element that has to be in the selector chain as 'shadow' if you want to reach its descendants. In fact, if it didn't have quotes, it could even just be selected like an element, rather than as something that only a new combinator or pseudo-element can reach through. But I don't see how any of this is worse, syntax-wise. It seems simpler.

Other people have suggested that as well in the past, but making it an
element ends up causing its own suite of problems.  It works best as
something equivalent to a document fragment.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 08:09:58 UTC

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