- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:41:09 -0800
- To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
[ryosuke, your mail client keeps producing flattened replies. maybe send as plain-text, not HTML?] On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ? I didn't mention DOM APIs. I'm referring back to the example you're >>>> replying to - if you use a <bar> element inside your <foo> component, >>>> and you know that <bar> has isolation styles, you have to specifically >>>> call that out inside your <foo> styling so that it (a) is shielded >>>> from your foo styles, and (b) is able to pick up the global definition >>>> for bar styles. This is relatively clumsy. Some of the other >>>> solutions attach the "I want to be isolated" information to the >>>> element itself more directly, so you don't have to worry about what >>>> you put inside of yourself. >>> >>> This is no more clumsy than defining an insertion points in shadow DOM. Or >>> am I misunderstanding you? >> >> Yeah. In Shadow DOM, you can just *use* the <bar> element, without >> having to think about it. > > I don't know what you mean by one doesn't have to think about it. The style > applied on <bar> won't propagate into the shadow DOM by default [1] unless > we use /deep/ or >>> [2] The style defined for <bar> *in <bar>'s setup code* (that is, in a <style> contained inside <bar>'s shadow tree) works automatically without you having to care about what <bar> is doing. <bar> is like a replaced element - it has its own rendering, and you can generally just leave it alone to do its thing. In the previous examples, we weren't talking about defining styling for <bar>s that are specifically inside of <foo>s, just how to style <bar> generically, regardless of its context. Current shadow DOM makes that easy to do without requiring the different components to know about each other in any way; the declarative CSS mechanisms we were previously discussing did not. >> I mean, those are two possible options. They're not the only ones. >> For example, you could say that all selectors pay attention to the >> isolation boundary, so qSA is affected. That's *a* consistent answer, >> and could be very reasonable - people often use qSA to do >> styling-related things, and having it respect the style boundaries >> makes sense there. >> >> I'm saying there are multiple places you can draw the line. I think >> there's a nice defensible spot at the point you end up with when you >> do DOM isolation - everything that cares about the DOM tree (which >> includes CSS selectors, defined in terms of the DOM tree) gets locked >> out by default. Anywhere else has arguments for it, but I don't think >> any of them are particularly more compelling than any other. > > What are other sensible alternatives? I agree there are other options but > they aren't sensible as far as I'm concerned. > > [1] http://jsfiddle.net/seyL1vqn/ > [2] http://jsfiddle.net/seyL1vqn/1/ I listed several in the text you're responding to, and previous replies. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 01:42:01 UTC