- From: andruud via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2025 11:23:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Yeah, we could spec this better. > When the spec reads "if applied to a pseudo-element", does that mean that it depends on the selector being used, not what the actual backing is? It is _only_ reasonable to "branch" on the what the actual (pseudo)element _is_, IMO. You can apply attr()-containing declarations to (pseudo)elements that don't have any selectors "in use", e.g. stuff in the animation origin. > It gets a bit funnier for element-backed pseudo-elements tho, where should the attribute be looked at for those? > > Per spec to the originating element, which seems fine, but it's a bit weird to have this **divergence** with `::part()`. Wait, isn't `::part()` an element-backed pseudo-element? What's the divergence? The spec handles similar problems for [tree-counting functions](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/#tree-counting). We should probably try to keep consistent with that. > leaking attributes out of the shadow tree Are attribute values more secret than custom properties? -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12721#issuecomment-3248831772 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2025 11:24:00 UTC