[Bug 18483] [Shadow]: Shared stylesheets may make @host ambiguous

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18483

Steve Orvell <sorvell@chromium.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sorvell@chromium.org

--- Comment #9 from Steve Orvell <sorvell@chromium.org> ---
The (In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/aadaf5d62fff
> > > 
> > > Based on the recent internal thread, I suggest a slightly different syntax. 
> > > (Sorry for not getting to this earlier - I've been laboring under a mistaken
> > > idea of what @host does!)
> > > 
> > > I believe the syntax should instead be:
> > > 
> > > @host <selector>? { <declaration-list> }
> > > 
> > > If the selector is omitted, it defaults to "*".
> > > 
> > > This allows us to still address this bug's issue just as easily as before,
> > > but it makes the simple case (when you are only styling one type of element)
> > > easier to write.
> > 
> > I would _really_ like to keep the syntax the same as before. At-rules are
> > confusing enough, and the space between @host and <selector> has been
> > perceived as a descendant combinator by several folks. Not that the nested
> > parens is much better :-\
> 
> It's not a huge deal.  I'm okay if it stays the way it is; the current
> syntax makes sense, it's just suboptimal in the common case.

I agree with Tab here but feel more strongly about it.

Let's imagine this common case: I want to style the background color of my host
element. With the current syntax, this simple rule is much more difficult to
construct than it should be.

@host {
  * {
    background: tomato;
  }
}

With the proposed optional syntax, this is:

@host {
  background: tomato;
}

Personally, I think the optional selector in the proposed syntax is ok, but if
it's deemed too confusing (it does look like a descendent selector) perhaps
just this common case could be supported and for further qualification of the
rule you would use the original nested syntax.

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

Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 02:48:13 UTC