- From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:59:37 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ryosuke, your mail client keeps producing flattened replies. maybe > send as plain-text, not HTML?] Weird. I'm not seeing that at all on my end. > 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. If that's the behavior we want, then we should simply make @isolate pierce through isolates. You previously mentioned that: > On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > Alternately, say that it does work - the @isolate selector pierces > through isolation boundaries. Then you're still screwed, because if > the outer page wants to isolate .example blocks, but within your > component you use .example normally, without any isolation, whoops! > Suddenly your .example blocks are isolated, too, and getting weird > styles applied to them, while your own styles break since they can't > cross the unexpected boundary. But this same problem seems to exist in shadow DOM as well. We can't have a <bar> inside a <foo> behave differently from ones outside <foo> since all bar elements share the same implementation. I agree - R. Niwa
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 02:00:35 UTC