On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> Very excited for this feature! > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Roland Steiner <rolandstei...@chromium.org > > wrote: >> >> As per discussion on >> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-June/032056.html, >> our implementation would diverge from the current HTML5 spec >> > > Why do diverge? It seems like we should at least prefix the attribute with > webkit in the case spec changes in the future. > See above linked discussion for details. In the end we felt limiting the selector matching to the scope is more natural, and - with the proposed exception providued by :root and :scope - is more flexible. However, naming the attribute 'webkit-scoped' may certainly be a good idea. Can we take these steps behind a flag given the attribute doesn't work >> properly without some steps? >> > I would prefer not to use a flag for the following reasons: .) I already have the basic functionality working, with the exception of scoped @keyframes and @font-face, so landing should not take a long time (I am currently in the process of breaking the patch up, and adding more tests). .) There are quite a few changes that add parameters to functions, etc., which makes adding a flag ugly. Cheers, - Roland
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev