- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:06:07 -0700
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: <www-style@w3.org>
± The Shadow DOM pseudos have already switched to this (the spec may not
± have caught up to it, yet), and Alan was planning to switch ::region as well, as
± soon as Shadow DOM's switch was confirmed and sure.
Ok, good to know. Was any anouncement made for this?
± > PS: By the way, did someone beside Tab had a look at the {so-called}
± ":host(selector) pseudo-class" {previously known as the ":context()" pseudo-
± class}? It seems really crazy to me and not functionally belonging to the
± "pseudo-class family". If not, please have a look here:
± >
± > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22390
± >
± > and start a new thread if you feel the same as me
±
± How is it possibly not a pseudo-class? It's an additional filter applied to the
± host element, based on information not obtainable via normal selectors.
The problem is that, if I understood it correctly, selectors like ":host(...) *" and "*" may select completely different stuff, in a completely different part of the DOM tree, across several shadow dom entries. I don't think it should be possible to style ancestors of the the shadow dom host, and it seems what this stuff is aimed at.
What's the reason why we would like to allow to style parents of the shadow dom host from inside, by the way?
Or did I miss the point?
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 05:06:38 UTC