- 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