- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
- To: w3c/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 11 September 2017 21:39:11 UTC
> SVG and HTML aren't really separate languages/hosts though. They can be intertwined. Of course, but they are allowed to give different definitions to how/when particular pseudo-classes match. > So the CSS WG doesn't object to HTML defining new pseudo-classes? And how HTML decides to name them? That used to be much more controversial at least. As I said, "so long as it has enough visibility for the correct implementors to know about it". In practice, the "correct implementors" are CSSWG members. So other specs can be the *home* for a particular pseudo-class’s definition, but the act of defining it still generally has to make at least a cursory pass thru the CSSWG. -- 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/665#issuecomment-328666305
Received on Monday, 11 September 2017 21:39:11 UTC