- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:30:02 +0200
- To: "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@google.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins" <tabatkins@google.com>
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 04:30:12 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote: > Tab just pointed out to me that another issue with using > pseudo-elements is if we let developers just create their own, CSS3 > won't be able to add new pseudo-elements, paralyzed by fear of > breaking the Web. The solutions are: > > 1) Only allow developers to use a strict set of names (which seems > deficient, because we can't really invent all names for all purposes > here) > 2) Use some sort of a prefix > 3) Invent a different method of conveying this information, like > part(foo) that I suggested before. > 4) <insert idea> I think ::part(ident) or ::shadow(ident) is the best. That way parsing rules do not have to be changed (unknown pseudo-elements are dropped, currently violated by WebKit) and the purpose of the pseudo-elements when used in a style sheet is clear. Alternatively we could have a new combinator for reaching into a shadow DOM of an element. Either way the shadow DOM will need to clearly indicate which elements can be selected. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2011 10:30:38 UTC