- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 23:05:33 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21390 --- Comment #2 from Steve Orvell <sorvell@chromium.org> --- (In reply to comment #1) > Since "match .foo shadowDOM children inside host elements matching .bar", > ".bar::shadow(:root > .foo)" doesn't match a host element whose class is bar > and whose shadow root has any direct child whose class is foo. I'm not sure I follow this. Are you just saying that we're changing the @host rule from always matching the host element to matching other elements? If so, then yes, that's the goal of adding ::shadow, to be able to style shadowDOM elements based on the host's selectors. > So, if we write the followings, what elements should the followings match? > > @host { > .bar::shadow(:root > .foo) > div { > .... > } > .bar::shadow(:root > .foo) div { > .... > } > } > > Are the above rules the same as the followings? > > @host { > .bar::shadow(:root > .foo > div) { > .... > } > .bar::shadow(:root > .foo div) { > .... > } > } > > Or should we disallow the above rules? Yes, the above rules (first set) don't make sense. I vote to disallow that. This points out that the syntax here is awkward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 23:05:45 UTC