- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 01:00:20 -0800
- To: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 09:00:51 UTC
On Feb 4, 2015 7:24 PM, "Rune Lillesveen" <rune@opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com> wrote: > > >> If so, using "tree of trees" might mislead to think otherwise. > > > > Eh, if you just follow the algorithm it's impossible to screw up. And > > "tree of trees" is the term I want, as it applies between sibling > > shadow trees. > > OK, I'm fine with using "tree of trees", but aren't sibling shadow > trees also different scopes? That is, the scoping root is the shadow > root and sibling shadow trees each have a separate shadow root? They > currently are in Blink fwiw. Not quite. You can, via `:host >>> .foo`, select into sibling shadows from inside one of the shadows. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 09:00:51 UTC