You can sort of polyfill CSS variables with Myth ( http://www.myth.io ) but
it sounds like they don't cascade.
On Feb 12, 2014 1:00 PM, "Scott Miles" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good questions. :)
>
> - I understand why ^ and ^^ is necessary, but in general doesn't ^ and
> ^^ necessitate a developer to either know the sDOM code or dig into it?
> This seems very un-componenty/goes against the idea behind components to
> me. In general would it be considered good practice to use ^ and ^^
> sparingly? Essentially try not to cross the shadow boundary as much as
> possible?
>
> In general yes, we want folks to avoid ^ and ^^. The vibe is that styles
> are protected by default and you can only break the style encapsulation on
> purpose via ^ and ^^.
>
> However, very often components want to be 'themable', which is to say,
> styled to match a particular environment. In that case we suggest authors
> provide documentation about classes which are 'safely stylable' using ^^.
>
> IOW, the author of input-range (I made that up) defines a 'range-thumb'
> class for end-users to theme his control. Then we can put in our page:
>
> body ^^ input-range ^ .range-thumb {
> color: blue;
> }
>
>
> This is 'safe' because we have a contract with the author about
> '.range-thumb' that leaks nothing about the structure of input-range.
>
> Admittedly, the syntax is a bit nasty, and ^ and ^^ are big hammers. We
> are still working on increasing elegance.
>
> - If styling should be exposed, it seems like CSS variables is the way
> to do it since it provides a nice interface for users which seems more
> componenty to me than ^ and ^^. I was wondering what your thoughts were on
> this.
>
> CSS variables are too specific. You could expose 'font-size' this way, but
> what if I want to change any of the numerous other font properties. Trying
> to expose variables for every possible thing is not practical.
>
> - On first take it seems a bit strange to me that each component has
> to have documentation about what attributes/variables act as the interface
> with the component especially since the 'API' can be arbitrary.
>
> I'm confused how you note that the API is arbitrary and then ask why it
> needs documentation. It needs documentation because it's arbitrary.
>
> - Is there a good polyfill for CSS variables? It seems like it's being
> removed in blink (
>
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/ScKw9zYRkBc
> )?
>
> I don't know about CSS Variable polyfills, sorry. Anybody else?
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jay Ryoo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I just started getting into Polymer and am very excited by the prospect
>> of web components. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the central
>> idea is that developers create components and every component has an
>> API-like interface that other developers can use to use the component.
>>
>> I am currently reading Shadow DOM 201 and had some questions regarding ^,
>> ^^, and CSS variables.
>>
>> 1. I understand why ^ and ^^ is necessary, but in general doesn't ^
>> and ^^ necessitate a developer to either know the sDOM code or dig into
>> it?
>> This seems very un-componenty/goes against the idea behind components to
>> me. In general would it be considered good practice to use ^ and ^^
>> sparingly? Essentially try not to cross the shadow boundary as much as
>> possible?
>> 2. If styling should be exposed, it seems like CSS variables is the
>> way to do it since it provides a nice interface for users which seems more
>> componenty to me than ^ and ^^. I was wondering what your thoughts were on
>> this.
>> 3. On first take it seems a bit strange to me that each component has
>> to have documentation about what attributes/variables act as the interface
>> with the component especially since the 'API' can be arbitrary.
>> 4. Is there a good polyfill for CSS variables? It seems like it's
>> being removed in blink (
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/ScKw9zYRkBc
>> )?
>>
>> Please let me know if these questions make sense in the context of
>> polymer, as I am new I may not be understanding principles correctly.
>>
>> Thank you
>> - Jay
>>
>> 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/f5d3ffd8-d418-4b7b-9fcd-c4e09f9f20e8%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/CAHbmOLZkAGu6ybE3EuULiyaeB6r7swrmrivE9YyEzZDPc0-%2Bjw%40mail.gmail.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/CAJj5OwBGwvhRx4cvQ2XGHATNG-WDSUaQ-k6XZ3dQD0ds14AOiw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
