W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2013

Re: ::distributed and relative selectors (Was Re: [shadowdom]: Using :root to specify the insertion point in ::distributed)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:44:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA70K3YG_ex-kZVz-Ubab+TSxuAQ57xeMM2uVmeoXktGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:54 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 02:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com> wrote:
>>> I am wondering that we can resolve this ':scope' issue for
>>> '::distributed' pseudo element by updating a relative selector spec
>>> somehow, though I am not sure how we should update the spec yet.
>>>  From the view point of the syntax,
>>>    A) ::distributed(> .hello)
>>>    B) ::distributed(.hello:root)
>> Yes, I prefer A as well.  It just means we'll have to further split
>> hairs on the semantics of relative selectors. :/
>> I think this needs to be done by a separate "absolutizing" algorithm
>> (separate from the current one) that converts "foo" into "foo" (no
>> change), "> foo" into "foo"-but-only-matches-elements-without-parents,
>> and convert "+ foo" and "~ foo" into "" (matches nothing).  (Other
>> combinators like || and /for/ also turn into matching nothing.)
>> fantasai, what do you think?
> If that's what I told you I think we should do earlier (which it seems
> to be, but the quoted part of the discussion confuses me), then I agree
> with it. :)

Yes it is, just in more detail.  Time to edit the spec!

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 18:45:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:29 UTC