- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:48:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Do you mean the currently specced behavior is the expected behavior or not? Not. Per the Scoping spec, we should expect `anchor(--foo ...)` in a shadow tree to be capable of seeing `anchor-name: --foo` in the light tree, if nothing in the shadow tree defines that name already. > My understanding of that spec is: it was designed with only at-rules in mind. In particular, the "inheritance" behavior makes sense to me only for at-rules. For other names, it seems better to just restrict them to the same tree scope. It was def written with at-rules foremost in mind, but I think the reasoning for the "inheritance" still makes decent sense - it means components can anchor to things outside of themselves, but without polluting namespaces that don't expect it. Like, it'd probably be *fine* if we ended up restricting tree-scoped names created by properties rather than at-rules to be same-tree only, but I don't think there's a *good reason* to do so from a theoretical standpoint. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7916#issuecomment-1287372737 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 21 October 2022 19:48:55 UTC