- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:14:51 -0700
- To: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
- Cc: Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hmm, you're right, this isn't very stable. If you remove #3, it >>> completely changes the ordering, so that #2 sorts ahead of #1, rather >>> than at the end. The ordering of any two declarations shouldn't be >>> affected by the presence or absence of other declarations. >>> >>> We should fix this up somehow to make things work better. It probably >>> means adding some special cascade behavior for ::content? >> >> I don't have experience in making real web components. >> >> I don't know the rationale for handling re-distribution to shadow tree >> siblings differently from distribution to shadow trees for other >> hosts. >> >> If specificity should beat ordering for redistribution and ::content >> through different hosts, like the spec says now, why isn't that what >> you want for re-distribution through shadow tree siblings as well? > > We have a similar sort of complex inter-dependencies even with single > shadow roots when some of the scopes have an ascendant/descendant > relationship in the tree-of-trees, and some not. Looks like WebApps agreed to drop the shadow-piercing stuff from CSS's dynamic profile anyway, so this thread is (luckily) moot. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 22:15:38 UTC