Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-scoping] Proposal for light-dom scoping/namespacing with re-designed `@scope` rule (#5809)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-scoping] Proposal for light-dom scoping/namespacing with re-designed @scope rule  (next steps)`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Move the work miriam has done to cascade L6`
* `RESOLVED: Take css-shadow-parts and css-scoping drafts, integrate, and republish as css-shadow`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-scoping] Proposal for light-dom scoping/namespacing with re-designed @scope rule  (next steps)<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5809#issuecomment-906791563<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: I had presented rough proposal. Group asked for rough spec in scoping 2. Parts felt it might belong in cascade or maybe selectors<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: Wasn't sure if should be working toward fpwd in scoping 2 or merge some into cascade<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: It's strange to have scoping spec w/o scope in it<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: Asking for next steps here<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think thematically what's best is b/c has cascading implications put as cascade l6. Scoping spec that doesn't talk about scope I think name of spec is confusing since it's about shadow dom interaction. maybe should rename it<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Scoping spec names after @scope, added shadow dom, then removed @scope.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Regardless of rename, what about moving what's in draft to cascade<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Reasonable<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Call it cascade 6 and go from there<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Arguments against?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: Move the work miriam has done to cascade l6<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Move the work miriam has done to cascade L6<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: Anything to move it toward FPWD?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Where is cascade L5 at?<br>
&lt;dael> miriam: Fairly stable. 2 browsers are implementing<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I would suggest make the edits and the diff spec. Then bring it to another call asking for FPWD.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Cascade 5 should be in CR and we're hung up on some edits for both it and L4. Once that's done we'll put them to CR.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Until the edits are in and it's CR it'll be easier to keep L6 as a diff spec<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: It will be easier to get people to focus on the new thing when that's the only thing in doc<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: What should we rename scoping to?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> css-shadow-dom<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Have shadow-parts. maybe just shadow? Shadow-dom?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I would go with css-shadow. Clarify in title<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Should shadow-parts merge in?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: If this became a shadow spec, yeah<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: css-shadow styling spec for both<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: CSS Shadow DOM Integration or something like that. not styling the shadows<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Shortname is what'simportant. shadow or shadow-dom<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: css-shadow<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Other opinions?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: prop: Take css-shadow-parts and css-scoping drafts, integrate, adn republish as css-shadow<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Take css-shadow-parts and css-scoping drafts, integrate, and republish as css-shadow<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5809#issuecomment-910896765 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2021 23:32:42 UTC