[Bug 20150] [Shadow]: "Nested tree" is defined, but "nesting tree" is only implied

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20150

Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[Shadow]: Contradiction in  |[Shadow]: "Nested tree" is
                   |@host @-rule matching       |defined, but "nesting tree"
                   |criteria                    |is only implied

--- Comment #1 from Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> There's a contradiction in @host @-rule matching criteria. Here
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.
> html#styles specification reads:
> 
> "The @host @-rule matches a shadow host in the nesting tree."
> 
> But below
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.
> html#host-at-rule there are the following:
> 
> "The declarations of the rules in a @host @-rule must only be matched
> against the shadow host of the shadow tree in which the style is specified"
> 
> So this is a contradiction. If there's a shadow tree containing the nested
> tree should @host rule be applied to the nested tree or to the shadow tree
> itself only?

Ah! I think I know what the problem is. I started using the term "nesting tree"
as the opposite of "nested tree" but never captured this in writing. I think
you're reading "nesting" and "nested" as being the same thing and thus seeing a
contradiction. Let me fix this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 18:39:10 UTC