- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:12:14 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/11/11 2:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> XBL exposes the shadow tree directly > > I have no idea what you mean by that. > >> 1. It makes the selector tree not match the source tree, without an >> explicit indication that something weird is going on. Components >> should, in general, look like and act like normal elements, so that >> ordinary selectors act in expected ways. (For example, "details> p" >> should match the<p> in "<details><p>foo</p></details>", even if the >> implementation puts a shadow wrapper around the contents. > > That works today, in XBL1 and in the XBL2 proposals. Have you actually > tried this, or did you just assume things about the way those work that > don't match reality? > >> 2. It exposes the entire shadow tree. > > _This_ I agree is a problem in current XBL1/2. However, it seems like so > does the '%' proposal. And if it doesn't, then whatever restrictions that > proposal is applying can apply just as easily to ' '. > > So I still don't see the need for a new combinator here... > >> (Hyatt already lodged a strong complaint against anything >> that selects into the raw shadow tree, rather than selecting from >> among a curated set of elements in the shadow.) > > I have no problem with making ' ' do that. Space won't work, because you'll have ambiguity with what you're trying to address: are these children of the element or the shadow subtree elements? :DG<
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 22:12:38 UTC