- From: Emilio Cobos Álvarez via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 21:38:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Directing this towards both Moz and Apple: this isn't a useful position to take. :/ We're currently proceeding in implementation on the assumption of support, based on previous statements from both of y'all's companies. "Like the idea, don't know about any details" means you don't like the spec and don't want us to implement, right? Because if we do implement, things'll gradually freeze, so you better make sure all the details you're unsure about are indeed something you'd like to see. I want to insist that that was a personal position, not nothing official, fwiw. I don't have the cycles right now to be able to review the spec as carefully as it deserves, and thus I don't want to say I support specifics that may have implications that I haven't actually grasped fully. > No, there's nothing scope-specific about it at all. Could you point to what gave you that impression, so I can fix it in the spec? The parts that an element exposes are just a part of the element's API, like its class list or its ID. Each shadow host just has a parts map, which maps part names to a list of elements (either from its own shadow tree, or a descendant tree if they're forwarding). That means that selectors in an descendant shadow tree that specify a part that that is forwarded from an outer shadow tree should match, is that right? (See my example in that comment). If so, that seems reasonable to me, but that is not in the specification (nor it seems the most obvious interpretation, given @fergald seems to have read the spec the same way I did). I can file an issue for that if you want. -- GitHub Notification of comment by emilio Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2368#issuecomment-369739478 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2018 21:38:02 UTC