- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:45:53 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2013 9:39 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote: > > >> Web components can't define pseudo elements. So no. > >> > >> This sadly also means that you can't write a CSS which styles the > default > >> UA UI if that is used, and styles an attached Shadow DOM if that is > used. > > > > > > That's simply not true. Where'd you get that? > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/shadow-dom/#custom-pseudo-elements > > Ah, I thought that the cat and hat combinators had replaced pseudo element > support. Glad to see that is not the case. > That will probably still happen, at least in the scope of shadow DOM. Cat/hat are a much better replacement. See my (longish) explanation of the problem with custom pseudo elements here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0454.html > However as the spec is currently written the author still couldn't write a > replacement for <select> which supports a ::options-box pseudo element (if > that is what we agree it should be called and what the UA UI should respond > to.) > Yup. That's something that needs to be figured out. I wonder if the right approach is to explaining pseudo elements is to treat them as something that may rely on Shadow DOM, but is a different beast altogether, because they have some rather interesting quirks (look at ::backdrop, for instance). :DG<
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 17:46:22 UTC