Re: [shadow-styling] alternative idea.

> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:13 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This was actually the very first thing we tried with Shadow DOM
>>>>> styling, at least two years ago.  At-rules seemed like the the most
>>>>> natural context-switcher.
>>> 
>>> As further justification for rejecting this, the WG as a whole has
>>> moved away from using at-rules as a selector context-switcher.
>>> @region was an early attempt at this as well, and we decided not to do
>>> it.
>> 
>> Where do you get that? Because Alan changed @region to be more like shadow-DOM (a moving target), and then a couple others suggested that this was further justification for maybe using pseudos instead of embedding rules in @page? You can't accurately say "WG as a whole" when I am in the WG and disagree with such a change in direction. That's not a whole.
> 
> Consensus isn't unanimity. ^_^

You didn't say consensus. You said "as a whole". And where is this consensus recorded?

>> And we still use @media as a selector context-switcher, and that is still going strong and being expanded and has been pretty successful.
> 
> @media isn't a selector, or anything like it.

I didn't say it was. I was using your wording, which I took to mean, "something to switch the context of the selectors in it", which is what we are talking about for @shadow. 

Now it seems that you just want to use this wording as a way to not consider what was otherwise clear in my argument, and clear from the context of the preceding thread, which I am starting to see as a repeating pattern with you lately.

Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 19:51:59 UTC