- From: Ryosuke Niwa via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 03:02:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Okay. Note that we're not disputing that the need to pair each `@font-face` declaration with the scope for the purpose of writing a spec. I was mostly describing the author observable behavior in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1995#issuecomment-439275301.
If the reference of a global name is pair (name, scope), why should there be any ambiguity when it gets inherited to the content of a shadow tree? In the above example:
```html
<!doctype html>
<style>
@font-face { font-family: foo; src: url(foo); }
body { font-family: foo; }
</style>
This text is in the outer page's "foo" font.
<x-component>
<::shadow>
<style>
@font-face { font-family: foo; src: url(bar); }
p.special { font-family: foo; }
</style>
This inherits font-family: ("foo", document).
<p class=special>This text is in the shadow's "foo" font on purpose.
</::shadow>
</x-component>
```
The child of the shadow root refers to the `font-family` of ("foo", document) so we wouldn't accidentally resolve as ("foo", ::shadow). Any reference to "foo" within the shadow tree would implicitly resolve to ("foo", ::shadow) so there is no ambiguity there either.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by rniwa
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1995#issuecomment-483492922 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2019 03:02:37 UTC