W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > April 2020

[csswg-drafts] [css-cascade] Where do "custom origins" fit in the cascade? (#5003)

From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 22:39:29 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-606621083-1587767967-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
mirisuzanne has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-cascade] Where do "custom origins" fit in the cascade? ==
This is in relation to #4470 custom-origin proposal.

While originally based on the concept of “origins” as a useful way to balance larger-scale cascade layers, this feature isn’t necessarily tied to the current rules for origins and importance — which exist to balance power at an even larger scale between authors and users/user-agents. Instead, 

In order to address the use-cases described in early conversations (`Reset < Design System < Overrides`, `Reset < Defaults < Patterns < Layouts < Components`, `CMS Core < CMS Extend < Base Theme < Site Styles`, `Old Styles < New Styles`), “custom origins” only need a higher weight than specificity. Given that, I think it would work best as a new cascade layer between scope & specificity. 

That would mean:

- Authors get a new “top-level” cascade option above specificity, and not limited by selector practicalities, but still confined to origin & scope.
- The feature would not impact existing origin/importance and scope/shadow-dom rules, potentially rendering #4984 moot. 

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5003 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 April 2020 22:39:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:31:24 UTC