- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:36:28 -0700
- To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, Takashi Sakamoto <tasak@google.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: > Tab wrote: >>> OK. So should we change ::cue(foo) to ::cue foo? >> >> If possible, yeah. > > I think we should retain ::cue's functional syntax. VTT's markup lives > in a different world from the <video> element's document, and the > functional syntax makes that clear: > > foo bar baz video::cue(wormhole to other world) > > If we drop the functional syntax, you get this: > > foo bar baz video::cue thing-that-looks-like-it's-in-the-main-document > > VTT documents are conceptually more separate from the HTML documents > which link to them than Shadow DOM trees are from their light DOM hosts; > it's a good thing for this to be syntactically different. This is not, for any practical purposes, any more or less separate than a shadow DOM tree or a region tree. Your argument against ::cue applies equally to ::content, since you can also have: foo bar baz content::content thing-that-looks-like-it's-in-the-shadow-tree So, this argument proves too much, unless you're trying to make the more general argument (which I don't think you are). ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 19:37:19 UTC