- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:32:52 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@gmail.com>
On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
>> However, I would like to do this expeditiously (days, not weeks), so that
>> Blink is able to ship with the new names.
>
> To make this statement a little clearer:
>
> Chrome *will* be shipping Shadow DOM publicly (in conjunction with
> Moz) in the *very near* future. Whatever API gets shipped will be
> frozen almost immediately. If you want to suggest name changes, as we
> brainstormed a bit at the f2f, do so RIGHT NOW or forever hold your
> peace.
From the minutes <http://www.w3.org/mid/52EA224C.3090504@inkedblade.net>:
ShadowDOM: Shadow-Piercing Selectors
------------------------------------
Discussed Google proposal for one-shadow-level and all-shadow-level
combinators. Proposed syntax was ^ and ^^; WG prefers using pseudo-
elements (e.g. ::shadow and ::darkside, or fill in your fav name here)
because
- more mnemonic
- reflects the fact that we're crossing a tree boundary
- allows us to use parallel syntax for region- and page-based styling,
which is structurally the same problem
- avoids the need for :top -- can just use child combinator as needed
So it sounds like the working group is not happy with the cat and hat selectors as-is.
Simon
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 23:33:31 UTC