Filed as https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28587.
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:16 AM Hayato Ito <hay...@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks Anne, I agree that it would be great to have something like this. > > I think it's too early for us to judge something because we don't have a > well defined Imperative API as of now. Let's re-open this issue after we > can see how an Imperative API goes. > I'll file a bug for the spec about this inheritance challenge so that we > can continue the discussion in the bugzilla. > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: >> > The problem with "<shadow> as function" is that the superclass >> implicitly selects nodes based on a CSS selector so unless the nodes a >> subclass wants to insert matches exactly what the author of superclass >> considered, the subclass won't be able to override it. e.g. if the >> superclass had an insertion point with select="input.foo", then it's not >> possible for a subclass to then override it with, for example, an input >> element wrapped in a span. >> >> So what if we flipped this as well and came up with an imperative API >> for "<shadow> as a function". I.e. "<shadow> as an actual function"? >> Would that give us agreement? >> >> It'd be great to have something like this available. >> >> >> -- >> https://annevankesteren.nl/ >> >
