[Bug 19681] [Shadow]: Refactor styles to get rid of rule applicability

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19681

--- Comment #3 from Takashi Sakamoto <tasak@google.com> ---
I'm sorry. I should file a new bug...

Now I can find the reason why I feel a little odd about a select reference
combinator.

I filed a new bug, https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19684


(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > >There is not /select/ attribute on "shadow". Can you explain why we would need something like this? (possibly on a new bug :P)
> 
> When I asked for a new bug, I didn't realize you were going to to reuse my
> other bug for this. I am starting to worry that I am mis-communicating
> something. I want to keep discussions on bugs focused and easily understood.
> That's why we have multiple bugs. One issue -- one bug. This bug is about
> refactoring the styles section to get rid of rule applicability algorithm. I
> can't figure out how the <shadow> discussion in your comment relates to it.
> I guess they are all related to styles. But then again, all bugs I've filed
> are related to Shadow DOM -- it doesn't mean we have just one bug for the
> whole spec :)
> > 
> > So only shadow reference combinator doesn't work for <shadow>? I'm thinking
> > of something like:
> > 
> > <x-A>
> >   <template>
> >     <style>
> >     content /select/ div.special { color: red; }
> >     </style>
> >     <content>
> >   </template>
> > </x-a>
> > 
> > <x-B extend="x-A">
> >   <template>
> >     <style>
> >     shadow /select/ div.special { color: blue; }
> >     </style>
> >     <shadow>
> >   </template>
> > </x-B>
> > 
> > So, x-B cannot apply any styles to distributed nodes?
> 
> > 
> > If we depend on select attribute, we can add our own fake select attribute
> > to <shadow>. (It doesn't work, but <shadow> can have select.>
> > 
> > I'mean:
> > 
> > <shadow id="x">...
> > 
> > getElementById("x").setAttribute("select", ":first-child");
> > 
> > So, "select" should be used when solving /select/?
> 
> Not necessarily, I guess. However, I would avoid adding features to the spec
> until we have a good use case for it. I don't think there is one right now.

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