W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2018

[csswg-drafts] [css-contain] "scoped property" definition is largely unused (?)

From: Daniel Holbert via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:41:37 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-336716108-1530207695-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
dholbert has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-contain] "scoped property" definition is largely unused (?) ==
In the style containment spec-text...
   https://drafts.csswg.org/css-contain/#containment-style
...there's an explanation of what a "scoped property" is, and how it "has its effects scoped to a particular element or subtree."  Most of this explanation is about what it means to be **scoped to an element** vs. **scoped to a subtree**.

However: this distinction doesn't seem to matter, because the spec only *uses* the "scoped to a subtree" behavior:

> The counter-increment and counter-set properties must be **scoped to the element’s sub-tree**
>[...]
> The effects of the content property’s open-quote, close-quote, no-open-quote and no-close-quote must be **scoped to the element’s sub-tree**.

So the definition of "scoped to an element" seems to be unused, which is a bit confusing.

If it's not going to be used, perhaps it'd be clearer to skip that definition, and dive directly into explaining what it means to scope to a subtree, rather than explaining an unused different term first?

(CC @frivoal @tabatkins )

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2845 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2018 17:41:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 28 June 2018 17:41:41 UTC