- 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