- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:26:08 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I do think authors expect `revert` to work without overriding presentational hints. So I can see use-cases for a `revert-as-expected` feature. I think those use-cases a generally the same as `revert`, just with the expected behavior. --- But given this use-case I have many of the same questions being asked above. We've established that scope works as a consumer-side solution. Doesn't it seem like there are also several existing package-side solutions? Is there a reason the package authors can't either use shadow DOM, or clarify the default styles they are currently relying on? The main reason I would imagine avoiding shadow dom as a package author is if I want things to be stylable -- at which point I'm putting it back on the consumer to handle any conflicts. I can't both protect and expose the package contents at the same time. If they are exposed, the consumer can cause issues and will also have to solve those issues. The main reason not to clarify required defaults is because there might be a lot of them. That's why there are defaults – so we don't have to be explicit about 500+ properties every time. But again: it seems to me like a package should either let consumers style the widget, in which case the consumer-side fix is the right approach to a consumer-side break – or they have to keep the package from being styled, in which case it should be using shadow DOM? -- GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13213#issuecomment-3800770747 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 26 January 2026 17:26:09 UTC