Re: Shadow tree style isolation primitive

Not trying to barge in, just sprinkling data...

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>>
>>> Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the
>>> composition problem:
>>>
>>> https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/
>>> friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
>>>
>>> This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I would
>>> like to see solved with the primitive being discussed on this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> random comments about that blog post.
>
>
>
>> [snip]
>> We need to be able to select mount nodes explicitly, and perhaps
>> explicitly say that all such nodes should be selected.
>> So, maybe, deep(mountName) and deep(*)
>>
>> Is there a reason you couldn't do that with normal CSS techniques, no
> additional combinator?  something like /mount/[id=foo] ?
>

That's ::shadow in the scoping spec:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-scoping/#shadow-pseudoelement


>
>
> [snip]
>
>> "It still needs to be possible from the hosting page to say “Yes, I mean
>> all buttons should be blue”"
>> I disagree with that. It can very well be possible that some component
>> really must control the colors itself. Say, it uses
>> buttons to indicate if traffic light is red or green. Making both those
>> buttons suddenly blue would break the whole concept of the
>> component.
>>
>
This is still possible, and works in a predictable way with today's styling
machinery. Use inline styles on the button that you want to be green/red
inside of the scope, and no /deep/ or /mount/ or >>> will be able to affect
it: http://jsbin.com/juyeziwaqo/1/edit?html,css,js,output ... unless the
war progressed to the stage where "!important" is used as hammer.

:DG<