- From: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 00:33:29 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com> wrote: >> Looks like the current spec wants to say: >> >> 1. The Origin and Importance matters >> 2. [Shadow Tree] The outer wins the inner (only when there is an >> ancestor/descendant relationship between two node trees) >> 3. [Shadow Tree] The younger wins the older (only when they are hosted by >> the same shadow host) >> 4. Specificity matters >> 5. Order of Appearance in tree-of-trees matters > > Yes. As far as I can tell, that's *exactly* what the spec is saying. > Is there anything unclear? No, it's clear now. > Note that you can fall all the way down to criteria 5 if, for example, > one shadow root reaches into a sibling shadow root and then into the > shadow of something else inside of there. When comparing that > declaration with one from inside the "something else", neither > criteria 2 nor criteria 3 apply, so you end up having to compare > specificity and ordering. A more common case is distribution and the application of ::content rules. It means all ::content rules will be ordered by specificity before order of appearance (tree of trees), and that inner ::content rules wins over outer ::content rules in the composed tree (as opposed to 2.) when the specificity is the same. -- Rune Lillesveen
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 23:33:57 UTC