- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:09:19 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I find the `@context` specifics a bit hard to track - maybe because I don't usually think of page/shadow contexts being ordered. But I suppose it's reasonable to say the order is something like: 1. normal shadow styles (lowest cascade priority) 2. normal page styles 3. important page styles 4. important shadow styles (highest cascade priority) So your proposal would result in… 1. normal first-context styles (from either shadow or page?) 2. normal shadow styles 3. normal page styles 4. normal last-context styles (from either shadow or page?) 5. important last-context styles (from either shadow or page?) 6. important page styles 7. important shadow styles 8. important first-context styles (from either shadow or page?) But if styles can be added to a first/last context from either the light or shadow DOM… does their originating context still come into play? Or do we now ignore the shadow/page context, and conflicts within first/last have to continue in the cascade? - As a solution to static top/bottom layers… I would rather see that built into the `@layer` rule. - I do see the additional use of specifying something akin to presentational-hints, but in my mind this confuses the current meaning of a `context`, since styles would now _move across contexts_ no matter where defined? -- GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10094#issuecomment-2190237149 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2024 00:09:20 UTC