W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [shadow-styling] Scoping at-rules like @font-face in scoped styled and shadow trees?

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:58:09 +0100
To: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.xbvx27kyidj3kv@simons-mbp>
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:30:36 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  

> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> We've never really decided how name-creating at-rules, like @font-face
>> or @counter-style, behave in a scoped style sheet.  Shadow trees
>> present an identical problem.  We should nail this down now.
>> I see a few options:
>> 1. They craete their name globally (no scoping effect at all).
>> 2. They create their name only within the scope.
>> 3. They don't create any names..
>> 4. They don't create any names by default, but when nested in an
>> @global rule, they create their name globally.
>> Any other options?  What do people think is the best answer?
>> I think we can rule out #3 immediately, by the way.  Early experience
>> with Shadow DOM shows that people want to use @font-face with their
>> components, and it's annoying to force pages to include a separate
>> <link> just for a stylesheet with @font-face rules in it; it's much
>> better to put the @font-face in the component's styles with everything
>> else.
>> I think #2 is fairly obviously the "best" answer, but it's hard to  
>> implement.
> Nobody else has any opinions?  If not, we should go with #1 and settle
> it in a spec.

I think #1 or #4 are OK. If we go with #1, does that mean that @global  
should be dropped? (It's in the HTML spec IIRC.)

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC