On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 7/19/11 12:30 AM, Roland Steiner wrote: >> >> I think one could argue for either case. Personally, I think it's >> advantageous to include the scoping element (i.e., use ":scope foo .bar, >> foo:scope .bar"), in order to be able to do style the scoping element >> itself rather than its children individually, e.g. >> >> :scope { background-color: mauve; } > > Hmm. I agree this is a useful thing to do, but perhaps it's better > accomplished by not prepending ":scope " to selectors which have a :scope in > the first sequence of simple selectors in addition to ones that have :root > there? > > This would still not make "foo .bar" match if the scope is a foo, but would > we actually want to match?
I think it's best for that case to *not* match. Otherwise, you have to explicitly remember to add a :not(:scope) to every rule that might match the scoping element. It's very easy to style the scoping element by using :scope explicitly. ~TJ