On 2.7.2013 18:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Bronislav Klučka
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2.7.2013 17:28, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bronislav Klučka
<[email protected]> wrote:
2/ change of part attribute from DOMString to DOMTokenList
This sounds all right. part='' is already class-like, since multiple
elements can have the same part='' value. The example at your page is
pretty compelling about this ability's usage. I guess ::part() would
also expand to taking a list of idents.
Why would it? We have established convention for AND operator
.class1.class2
would became
::part(node-checked)::part(node-selected)
and for OR operator
.class1, .class2
would became
::part(node-checked), ::part(node-selected)
:matches(.class1, .class2)
would became
:matches(::part(node-checked), ::part(node-selected))
Oh, no no no. ::part() is not a pseudo-class, it's a pseudo-element -
it points to a brand new element, rather than filtering the one you've
got. The fact that part='' is acting like class='' notwithstanding,
using ::part() like would be an abuse of the syntax. If we want to
support this, it has to be through something like "::part(node-checked
node-selected)".
As an example of why violating the syntax model is a bad idea, this
directly conflicts with your desire to surface the ::part()s of nested
components - the thing that exposes them might be exposed as a
::part() as well, so you need to be able to chain off of an existing
::part(), like "x-video::part(controls)::part(play-button)" (assuming
the controls were actually implemented by another component nested
inside the <x-video> shadow tree).
~TJ
And back to
x-video::part(controls)::part(play-button)
example
how it would be different from
x-video ::part(controls) ::part(play-button)
or this wouldn't be possible? the only possibilities being
::part(play-button)
or
::part(controls)::part(play-button)
or
x-video::part(controls)::part(play-button)
Brona
