- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:39:08 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
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