- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:46:48 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22980 Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominicc@chromium.org --- Comment #7 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Does this address the selector semantics concern? > > > > 1. the host element is in the set of elements that selectors in shadowRoot > > styles can match. > > 2. any selector that does not contain :host cannot match the host element. > > No, saying "X is in the set of elements, but it's impossible to select > unless you tack this pseudo-class on" is identical to "using this > pseudo-class adds X to the set of elements". Selectors, pseudo-classes > included, are just filters. Can't you add a layer of sugar? Host is in the set by default. In the (possibly unwriteable) primitives there's :except-host which removes host from the set. In the sugared layer, every rule is desugared to add :except-host. Unless the rule contains :host. Then it the desugaring just removes :host (because it is not primitive syntax, because it violates those things you were worried about) and hence host remains in the set. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2013 00:46:51 UTC