On 02/03/2015 07:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Not trying to barge in, just sprinkling data...
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Brian Kardell <bkard...@gmail.com
<mailto:bkard...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay <o...@pettay.fi
<mailto:o...@pettay.fi>> wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the
composition problem:
https://briankardell.__wordpress.com/2015/01/14/__friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
<https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/>
This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I
would like to see solved with the primitive being discussed on this thread.
random comments about that blog post.
[snip]
We need to be able to select mount nodes explicitly, and perhaps
explicitly say that all such nodes should be selected.
So, maybe, deep(mountName) and deep(*)
Is there a reason you couldn't do that with normal CSS techniques, no
additional combinator? something like /mount/[id=foo] ?
That's ::shadow in the scoping spec:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-scoping/#shadow-pseudoelement
[snip]
"It still needs to be possible from the hosting page to say “Yes, I mean all
buttons should be blue”"
I disagree with that. It can very well be possible that some component
really must control the colors itself. Say, it uses
buttons to indicate if traffic light is red or green. Making both those
buttons suddenly blue would break the whole concept of the
component.
This is still possible, and works in a predictable way with today's styling
machinery. Use inline styles on the button that you want to be green/red
inside of the scope, and no /deep/ or /mount/ or >>> will be able to affect it:
http://jsbin.com/juyeziwaqo/1/edit?html,css,js,output ... unless the
war progressed to the stage where "!important" is used as hammer.
Why should even !important work if the component wants to use its own colors?
:DG<
