Lemme respond to these points out of order: Unless I am missing something I don't think current features are sufficient > in this regard. Is this something polymer -the library- plans to address?
Polymer intends to provide an element theme-ing system. We think we have the primitives to do this but the proof is in the pudding. It's a high priority. I can think of several use cases where ^ and ^^ would be somewhat limited. Yes, in general, this is a very hard problem. We're attempting to combine a language in css that's intended to style a single tree of elements with a system that provides an inter-meshing tree of trees. The general starting point is that a custom element author provides a styling api, e.g. style the menu's icon via the .icon class. Then you can use, for example, x-menu ^ .icon. How can I use a CSS framework here without introducing copying and memory > overhead across components? > Chrome's implementation will ensure that styles are shared across custom element instances. ... Relying on ^ and ^^ looks unpractical in the case of a CSS framework as > this essentially implies rewriting it. Yes. In general, we have to own this new concept of scopes. It's not going to and shouldn't be trivial to jump into styling a shadowRoot. It's going to take some getting used to and may indeed require some additional platform support. On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Julien Eluard <[email protected]>wrote: > Right, no question applyAuthorStyles was dangerous. > > I can think of several use cases where ^ and ^^ would be somewhat limited. > > Assuming you want to write a set of reusable components relying on > ShadowDOM: > > * they will have a default style, whose implementation is hidden. How can > I use a CSS framework here without introducing copying and memory overhead > across components? > * users should be able to override those styles easily. Relying on ^ and > ^^ looks unpractical in the case of a CSS framework as this essentially > implies rewriting it. > > Those 2 points seems pretty important to allow the creation of library of > components. Unless I am missing something I don't think current features > are sufficient in this regard. Is this something polymer -the library- > plans to address? > > Thanks, > Julien > > Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 15:31:03 UTC-3, Steve Orvell a écrit : >> >> Good question. The recommended approach is to load the css in the scope >> in which it should apply. If you need scope crossing selectors, you'll need >> to rewrite the styling with ^ and ^^. >> >> While it's true that the removal of applyAuthorStyles makes this >> particular use case more difficult, there were good reasons for its removal: >> >> (1) applyAuthorStyles was always intended as a stop-gap. The right answer >> is to specifically style each scope, as mentioned above. >> (2) applyAuthorStyles had a built in footgun. While it allowed selectors >> to jump scopes, the selectors had to match entirely within a given scope, >> e.g. 'ul li' would not match if the li was in the ul's shadowRoot. This >> meant it would sometimes work, but it would sometimes not and figuring out >> why was very arcane. >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Julien Eluard <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> (Apologies if this is not the right place to discuss the following) >>> >>> I used to rely on 'applyAuthorStyles' to apply styles available from the >>> main document to components relying on ShadowDOM. A typical usage is having >>> all basic elements share styles defined by CSS framework (bootstrap, >>> foundation). 'applyAuthorStyles' has been removed from the ShadowDOM spec >>> and recently from Chrome Canary so I am looking for a replacement. >>> >>> It does not appear ^ and ^^ could help as they can't refer to existing >>> CSS rules. They do work when user defines their own rules though. >>> >>> What is the recommended way to achieve that? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Julien >>> >>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>> msgid/polymer-dev/4bb69407-92c0-4bf2-a296-8c3646164039% >>> 40googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/2aaea87f-baad-469f-8caa-da1929063d39%40googlegroups.com > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CA%2BrMWZiZJ47HXTP8PBoQe2gLUGTu2gFP8g_LgSxh5BaGCG87%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
