- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:46:58 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? In the resolutions to move away from using at-rules as selector context-switchers. >>> 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). ~TJ
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 20:47:47 UTC