- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:21:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> The ::part() will be able to see a container name set on the host element from within the shadow, tho, so there's still some shadow-leakage right at the boundary. But boundary leakage on the host is unavoidable so it's okay. You are probably saying it's unavoidable more generally, but at least for the specific case you mention there, that _is_ avoidable if container names were tree-scoped? > But this worked because we're doing this stuff at selector-resolution time, where we know that we're resolving a pseudo-element reference. Is it still possible to do when the search is initiated due to a property value rather than a selector? That's well after we're done with Selectors. I think you're right. The fact that a value "originates" from a pseudo-element-rule is long gone by the time we're ready to apply the effects of that value. We'd have to invent some new concept which would retain that fact. And at that point it seems preferable to re-use tree-scoped references. Not that I love tree-scoped references so much (they're expensive: we have to hold an entire TreeScope pointer next to each name, and lookup of things generally becomes more complicated), but trying to apply the 5984 CQ behavior to situations that can't be resolved selector-matching-time (e.g. anchor names, timeline names) seems like a worse alternative in practice. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7916#issuecomment-1331930549 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2022 10:21:23 UTC