- From: 河内 隆仁 <kochi@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:03:17 +0900
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
- Message-ID: <CADP2=hp3nO3+=XpY03VbpdTOCnmgJibFTXk-Fz41mNgtn+0RAw@mail.gmail.com>
FYI, the proposal is now at: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/Shadow-DOM-Cascade-Order.md On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:47 PM Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com> wrote: > >> > >> Yes, the scopes established by NODE's own shadow roots must be > >> included for :host and :host-context. > >> > >> While the proposed scope linearization algorithm describes which > >> scopes may contain rules that apply to NODE, isn't it so that the > >> inner/outer scope order is simply the tree-of-trees order of the > >> scopes? > >> > > > > Yeah, they are always same (in terms of relative order)! I thought there > is > > a case where they are different. However, I can't find a case where they > are > > different. That's an unintentional outcome, however it sounds a good > news to > > us. > > > PROPOSAL: > > Replace this text in 3.3.1: > > "When comparing two declarations, if one of them is in a shadow tree > and the other is in a document that contains that shadow tree, then > for normal rules the declaration from the outer document wins, and for > important rules the declaration from the shadow tree wins." > > with: > > "When comparing two declarations from different shadow trees, then for > normal rules the declaration from the tree which comes first in the > tree of trees order wins, and for important rules the declaration from > the tree which comes last in the tree-of-trees order wins. The tree of > trees order is defined by the Shadow DOM specification." > > > PROPOSAL: > > Given the change above, order of appearance will never apply when > comparing declarations from different shadow trees, just order of > appearance within one tree. Hence, I think this sentence can be > removed, as it will just add confusion: > > "When calculating Order of Appearance, the tree of trees, defined by > the Shadow DOM specification, is used to calculate ordering." > > > Multiple shadow roots: > > The tree of trees ordering of multiple shadow roots is now gone from > the Shadow DOM spec draft, but if I look at the latest published WD, > the tree of trees ordering says the oldest shadow root comes first, > which is the opposite of what is the case when constructing the event > path or the composed tree, so I think that looks inconsistent. I > haven't studied the Shadow DOM spec in enough detail to say if > ordering shadow roots the other way around for tree of trees ordering > would actually make a difference for the rest of that spec, but if the > tree of trees ordering was the other way around for multiple shadow > roots, the first PROPOSAL above would also cover the multiple shadow > roots case. > > Now, since multiple shadow roots are already gone from the Shadow DOM > draft for v1, the sentence where we describe cascade order for such > trees can be removed regardlessly. > > PROPOSAL: > > Drop the following text: > > "When comparing two declarations, if both are in shadow trees with the > same host element, then for normal rules the declaration from the > shadow tree that was created most recently wins, and for important > rules the declaration from the shadow tree that was created less > recently wins." > > > CLARIFICATION: > > I don't know if this is obvious, as there are special casing for > declarations from the style attributes in connection with scoped > stylesheets in [1], but I think declarations from style attributes > should belong to the same tree in terms of cascading as the element on > which it is set. That means, whether an element inside a shadow tree > is styled through a stylesheet rule in the shadow tree, or a style > attribute on that element should not affect the cascade order of that > declaration and a declaration from the outer tree. > > Should this be made explicit in the spec, or does that follow directly > from the fact that the attribute, hence the declaration, lives in the > same tree as the element on which it is set? > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-cascade-3/#cascade-scope > > -- > Rune Lillesveen > > -- Takayoshi Kochi
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 02:04:25 UTC