- From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:02:19 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
Hi Dimitri, You wrote: > As indicated by Tab at the F2F, Blink currently implements the cat/hat > combinators proposed by yours truly [3]. > > FWIW, I don't fully understand why it would be so terrible to leave > cat and hat alone (in talking with Tab, there's only a weak precedent > for preferring pseudo element functions to combinators with > ::content), but I am okay with renaming them. Ultimately, it's this > WG's shed, I just store my bike there. I don't think host documents should be able to select arbitrary elements in the shadow DOM. A much better model, which IIRC was in one of your documents at one point, is to let the component author explicitly export certain shadow elements as pseudos. Something like: # In shadow tree <div pseudo=foo>...</div> # in CSS, if that shadow tree is attached to el with id bar #bar::pseudo(foo) { ... } In this model, the component author is only signing up for a contract for which they know the terms. Also, given the several open threads on public-webapps about various foundational components issues, I think it would be a mistake to ship an implementation without either prefixing it or putting it behind a disabled-by-default runtime flag. That said, I'm sure you guys understand Blink's policy for exposing features to the Web better than I do. Ted
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 18:02:41 UTC