Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
I prefer pseudo-element names to more combinators.

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com