Re: [shadow-styling] Named parts, styling built-in form controls, and shadow styling (was Re: Goals for Shadow DOM review)

• From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
• Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:19:03 -0800
• To: www-style@w3.org
• Message-id: <m2wqgo8eag.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>

Hi Domenic,

You wrote:

> However, what I was initially wondering was: can we just use existing
> shadow DOM constructs? E.g. could you style the slider with
>   input[type="range"] /shadow/ .slider-thumb
> ?

I think we want to end up in a world where existing engine features *can
be explained* by platform features, but *are not necessarily implemented
with* platform features. Using /shadow/ to expose pieces of native form
controls feels like we're promising too much to authors, e.g. what if
the slider thumb isn't an Element?

In a world with Named Parts and a Shadow DOM capable of defining them,
input[type=range]::part(slider-thumb) levels the playing field between
authors and implementors without overcontsraining implementations.


Ted

Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 19:19:30 UTC