Re: [shadow-styling] alternative idea.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Brad Kemper <> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <> wrote:
>>> As soon as you will allow shadow dom styling expect
>>> bunch of rules like these:
>>> body[theme=blue] input[type=date] -> table th.weekday { color:blue }
>>> body[theme=blue] input[type=date] -> table { background:blue }
>>> body[theme=blue] input[type=date]:focus -> table { background:red }
>>> ...
>> I have no idea what these mean.  Are you using some weird custom
>> syntax?  Is "->" supposed to mean "/shadow-all" or something?
> It seems you DO have an idea of what those mean, since that is what I took it to mean too (or possibly just /shadow, if it matters to this). I believe "->" was even proposed earlier in the general discussion as an alternative syntax.
> So, if we make this assumption, do you have any response to Andrew's point?

No, because I'm not sure what his point is.

(An arrow *was* discussed as an *indicator* of named combinators, but
not as a combinator itself.  I've been burned in the past by people
inventing their own private syntaxes and trying to use them in
discussion, and I assume they work in a way different from what they
think they do.)


Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 20:49:08 UTC