Re: [shadow-styling] alternative idea.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Brad Kemper <> wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:13 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Brad Kemper <> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <> 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?

In the resolutions to move away from using at-rules as selector

>>> 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.

If you assume that I'm *not* being a jerk, you might come to the
conclusion that my words might have been a little unclear, and I was
clarifying with my response.  @media can be considered to be a
"context", but I was trying to talk about selectors specifically,
where you evaluate some selector in the context of another selector.
*That's* what we've moved away from (and Chrome's own internal
experience with it supports moving away - it gets confusing as heck).


Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 20:47:47 UTC