- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:40:57 -0700
- To: Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>
- Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think that, for the purpose of ::distributed, the scope element >> should be an abstract container, not the actual <content> element. >> This container would act as an element for the purposes of selectors, >> but it has no tagname or any other quality to select on. So, #1, #2, >> and #3 would match, but #4 and #5 wouldn't, because the scoping >> element isn't named "content". > > I noticed that we don't need 4) and 5) to prove contradiction. See the > following example, introducing 4': > > 1). content::distributed(> .hello) -> Please assume this matches. > 2). content::distributed(:scope > .hello) -> Matches. (1 and 2 > should be equivalent according to the defintion of relative > selectors). > 3). content::distributed(*:scope > .hello) -> Matches. > 4'). content::distributed(* > .hello) -> Should not match. > > 3) matches, but 4') should not match. > > I think it is hard to justify using :scope in this context. I am > afraid that we should handle ':scope' in this context very *tricky* in > implementing this. Maybe the spec is wrong. > My proposal is using ':root' as suggested in the original thread. I don't understand how :root could help. If :scope is problematic, presumably :root would have the same problems? I don't have a problem with 4' matching, actually. The virtual element must not show up in the selector's results, but that's all (and it can only appear if you use a selector like ":scope" or "*"). ~TJ
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 01:41:44 UTC