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

I'm not sure the specific rules governing selectors of this type but what
if you did `::shadow` and `::^shadow` or some other character after the
pseudo accessors


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
- Matthew Robb