- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 22:46:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Just curious - is there a reason this was split from #9284? If it was just to reset the conversation given a more stable design from HTML/OpenUI, should we close #9284? ---------- I don't have a strong opinion between these two. I'm happy that we seem to have settled on "copy the DOM over" in both solutions, and are just debating whether it should be visible in the light DOM or hidden by a UA shadow; that makes many potential questions much easier to answer. The Selectors spec is already equipped to handle Option 2, if we want: see [Pseudo-elements/internal structure](https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#pseudo-element-structure) and the [`<complex-selector>` grammar](https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#typedef-complex-selector). This would be the first pseudo-element to actually *use* that syntax. I suspect we might want Option 2, not for CSS reasons, but just for DOM reasons - it avoids the need to answer questions about mutation events and the like (I think those are censored by shadows? especially UA shadows?) -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10242#issuecomment-2080205459 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 26 April 2024 22:46:30 UTC