- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:21:16 -0400
- To: Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Addy Osmani <addyo@google.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>>> For style="" >>>>> attributes on elements within a style scope, you are right that you won't >>>>> know what your scope element is (although in Gecko we do know that the >>>>> element is in a style scope) and will have to traverse up to find it. >>>> >>>> While we're talking about style='', this seems fragile. If this >>>> allows arbitrary descendants to opt in, then it means that you can >>>> accidentally co-opt it by inserting *another* scoped stylesheet >>>> between the intended stylesheet and the element reffing the name. >>> >>> Sure, but then that's the same as co-opting uses of scoped() in a <style >>> scoped> sheet if you insert another <style scoped> somewhere up the tree, >>> isn't it? >> >> Yes, but that's hopefully more intentional, and definitely less common >> than just adding an unrelated <style scoped>. >> >> Anyway, Cam and I talked this out in IRC, and agreed that Shadow DOM >> at least should be able to work fine with "scoping to the shadow >> root", and we can solve the more general problem of scoped stylesheets >> later. > > Apparently this is still an issue: > https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=336876 What > happened after this thread? Any bugs we can track? The bug to track is the thing you just linked, isn't it? ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 16:22:04 UTC