W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [css-scoping] Shadow Cascading

From: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:46:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CANz6XvRkv9o8sJ=eH1UOMZ6WQZjKY+Tocg3Pgw_HayPeEk7EwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, but that's a scope crossing rule. My point was that the
cascading order between rules in different shadow trees for the same
host is still governed by:

"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."

as order of appearance is further down the list in [1]. So, perhaps
that statement should mention a tree-of-trees order instead of

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-cascade-3/#cascading

Rune Lillesveen
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 09:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC