- From: Zambonifofex <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:11:50 -0700
- To: w3c/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
- Cc:
- Message-ID: <w3c/webcomponents/issues/300/225209712@github.com>
@andyearnshaw > A component author, therefore, wouldn't modify the class attribute of the custom element hosting its shadow tree. Hrn, you’re right. Either way, my point is: I really dislike the `::part()` syntax. I think a different token could be used to represent custom pseudo-elements. ---------- But does anyone disagree with what I said about custom pseudo-elements? > Effectively, what I’m saying is that I prefer custom pseudo-elements to [@tabatkins’] suggestion because it is closer to what is done by user-agents to regular elements. ---------- Addressing https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/300#issuecomment-143880372: (1) Are shadow-pseudos more like classes or IDs? I think they should act exactly like ids. invalid: ```HTML <div pseudo="foo bar"></div> ``` invalid: ```HTML <div pseudo="foo"></div> <div pseudo="foo"></div> ``` (2) How do we handle both a parent and child exposing themselves as pseudo-elements? ```HTML <div pseudo="foo"> <div pseudo="bar"></div> </div> ``` ```CSS /* matches nothing */ x-baz::foo > div {} /* matches nothing */ div > x-baz::bar {} /* matches nothing */ x-bar::foo::bar {} /* matches <div pseudo="bar"> */ x-baz::foo > x-baz::bar {} ``` (3) If a component contains other components, and wants to expose some of its sub-components parts as pseudo-elements, how does it surface them? You can access them by nesting `::`. The following would show a “`Hello, world!`” button. ```HTML <!doctype html> <html> <head> <style> x-foo::bar::baz::before { content: "Hello, world!"; } </style> </head> <body> <x-foo> #shadow <x-bar pseudo="bar"> #shadow <button pseudo="baz"></button> /#shadow </x-bar> /#shadow </x-foo> </body> </html> ``` --- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/300#issuecomment-225209712
Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 15:12:23 UTC