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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-cascade][css-scoping] Define Shadow Tree in Cascade (#5372)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 23:08:37 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-669590344-1596668916-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade][css-scoping] Define Shadow Tree in Cascade`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Shift shadow dom cascade to cascade 4, remove scoping from cascade 4, move cascade 4 to WD and republish`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic:  [css-cascade][css-scoping] Define Shadow Tree in Cascade<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5372<br>
&lt;myles> q+ to ask if this is entirely an editorial change<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Noticing they're defined in scoping spec. I think we should import into cascade spec<br>
&lt;myles> q-<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: This would be normative b/c moving between specs but no effect on impl.<br>
&lt;dino> 🎁➕<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Assuming we do it correctly ^-^<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Any thoughts about this?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Any reasons why not?<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Spec statuses?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Scoping is WD. Cascade 4 which I think is where we should put it is CR<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Might consider pulling it to WD, adding this section, removing scoping which I think no one implements. If we do that only difference from L3 is revert keyword<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Process-wise maybe that's safest way to go since seems to be where impl have landed<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: more shuffling than just this but end result is version of cascade 4 with impl features?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's my proposal. Broader thank issue scope but makes the most sense<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Assuming no one impl scoping<br>
&lt;dael> florian: If we remove scoping it changes style attributes. We should go back and define them in terms of specificity again.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think that's part of edits<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Prop: Shift shadow dom cascade to cascade 4, removing scoping from cascade 4, move cascade 4 to WD and republish<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Sounds like fine orchestration<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Shift shadow dom cascade to cascade 4, remove scoping from cascade 4, move cascade 4 to WD and republish<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: When we have cascade 5 we'll put scoping in that. I'll leave 5 as ED with just scoping for now<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5372#issuecomment-669590344 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2020 23:08:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:13 UTC