On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
Hm, AFAICT Hixie's mail on www-style@ didn't raise any objections
against the idea itself, the discussion just revolves around what the
exact syntax should be. Given that, what is
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
Hm, AFAICT Hixie's mail on www-style@ didn't raise any objections
against the idea itself, the discussion just revolves around what
Hm, AFAICT Hixie's mail on www-style@ didn't raise any objections against
the idea itself, the discussion just revolves around what the exact syntax
should be. Given that, what is the chance that we are able to go forward and
declare selectors within style scoped as scoped, and leave the question
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
Hm, AFAICT Hixie's mail on www-style@ didn't raise any objections
against the idea itself, the discussion just revolves around what the
exact syntax should be. Given that, what is the chance that we are able
to go forward and declare selectors
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
[...]
However, as easy as that appears at first blush, I fear it would be seem
quite magical to authors who have trouble enough understanding CSS as it
is. Consider:
aside
section
style scoped
aside section
@global seems cool. Roland, WDYT?
:DG
On 9/15/11 9:40 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
@global seems cool.
Seems like it needs CSS core grammar changes to be usable with @media
and the like, right?
-Boris
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/15/11 9:40 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
@global seems cool.
Seems like it needs CSS core grammar changes to be usable with @media and
the like, right?
No, there's no core grammar changes to be made - the core grammar
On 9/15/11 11:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/15/11 9:40 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
@global seems cool.
Seems like it needs CSS core grammar changes to be usable with @media and
the like, right?
No, there's no core
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/15/11 11:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/15/11 9:40 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
@global seems cool.
Seems like it needs CSS core grammar
The question posed in this thread is whether selectors in scoped style
sheet blocks should be affected by ancestors of the scoped block. For
example, should this be possible:
body class=archive
...
section
style scoped
section h1 { border-bottom: solid; }
] on
behalf of ext Kornel Lesiński [kor...@geekhood.net]
Sent: 20 July 2011 22:37
To: a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Selectors within style scoped
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:55:51 +0100, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
div id=widget
style scoped
[whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] on
behalf of ext Kornel Lesiński [kor...@geekhood.net]
Sent: 20 July 2011 22:37
To: a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Selectors within style scoped
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:55:51 +0100, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
div
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:14:55 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
This is actually an interesting question. Does this end up
corresponding to:
:scope foo .bar, foo:scope .bar
or to just
:scope foo .bar
? The latter would not match on 'foo' being the scope element, while
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 20:36 +0100, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:14:55 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
This is actually an interesting question. Does this end up
corresponding to:
:scope foo .bar, foo:scope .bar
or to just
:scope foo .bar
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:55:51 +0100, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
div id=widget
style scoped
#widget foo {}
/style
/div
While I agree that that might be a common pattern, I disagree that it's
actually a good one. Consider an ad service which wraps everything in
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,
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
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
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
I actually really like this proposal.
Let's do this. Roland, Dave, Boris -- what do y'all think?
:DG
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:32:42 +0100, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
What if we do this:
1) By
On 7/18/11 10:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
I actually really like this proposal.
Let's do this. Roland, Dave, Boris -- what do y'all think?
The proposal being that all selectors are scoped except the ones where
:root is present in the first sequence of simple selectors (not quite
what
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 7/18/11 10:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
I actually really like this proposal.
Let's do this. Roland, Dave, Boris -- what do y'all think?
The proposal being that all selectors are scoped except the ones where
On 7/19/11 12:10 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Just to nail this down:
foo .bar
scoped, foo must be the scope element or a descendant
This is actually an interesting question. Does this end up
corresponding to:
:scope foo .bar, foo:scope .bar
or to just
:scope foo .bar
? The
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 7/19/11 12:10 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Just to nail this down:
foo .bar
scoped, foo must be the scope element or a descendant
This is actually an interesting question. Does this end up corresponding
to:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/17/11 1:39 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Having another scoped stylesheet under an element further up.
Why does that matter for the way rules in _this_ sheet are treated?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Roland Steiner rolandstei...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/17/11 1:39 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Having another scoped stylesheet under an element further up.
Why does that matter for the way
On 2011-06-17 09:36, Roland Steiner wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Roland Steinerrolandstei...@google.comwrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/#the-scope-pseudo-class says:
The :scopehttp://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/#scope
pseudo-class *must* match any
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:32:42 +0100, Dimitri Glazkov
dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
What if we do this:
1) By default, style scoped implies that all selectors in this
stylesheet are prefixed with :scope.
2) Unless the :scope is already in the selector.
That feels magical and a bit backwards
On 2011-06-15 08:40, Roland Steiner wrote:
According to the HMTL5 spec, selectors are not limited to children of the
scoping element (the parent element ofstyle scoped). For example:
div class=foo
div
style scoped
.foo p { display: none }
/style
pTo
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.auwrote:
On 2011-06-15 08:40, Roland Steiner wrote:
According to the HMTL5 spec, selectors are not limited to children of the
scoping element (the parent element ofstyle scoped). For example:
div class=foo
div
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
On 2011-06-15 08:40, Roland Steiner wrote:
According to the HMTL5 spec, selectors are not limited to children of the
scoping element (the parent element ofstyle scoped). For example:
div class=foo
div
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
But looking at this with my Web developer hat on, I would almost
_always_ prefix scoped rules with :scope, just to be safe. I certainly
don't want my .closed .foo { display:none } to start reacting to
some doofus
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.auwrote:
On 2011-06-15 08:40, Roland Steiner wrote:
According to the HMTL5 spec, selectors are not limited to children of the
scoping element (the parent element ofstyle scoped). For example:
div class=foo
div
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
As a web developer, I agree - my intuitive understanding of @scoped is
that it makes matching *start* at the scoped element. That's what
scoped means. The other meaning is more like a filter.
Me too. I think it
What if we do this:
1) By default, style scoped implies that all selectors in this
stylesheet are prefixed with :scope.
2) Unless the :scope is already in the selector.
:DG
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Dimitri
On 6/16/11 2:32 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
What if we do this:
1) By default,style scoped implies that all selectors in this
stylesheet are prefixed with :scope.
2) Unless the :scope is already in the selector.
I could live with that.
Especially if we allowed the CSSOM in this situation to
Do you actually mean try out both :scope tacked on to the end of the rule as
well as :scope (note the space indicating a descendant selector) tacked on
to the beginning?
So for example, #foo { } would turn into #foo:scope, :scope #foo { } thus
allowing it to match either the scope or a
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
Do you actually mean try out both :scope tacked on to the end of the rule
as well as :scope (note the space indicating a descendant selector) tacked
on to the beginning?
So for example, #foo { } would turn into #foo:scope,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/16/11 2:32 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
What if we do this:
1) By default,style scoped implies that all selectors in this
stylesheet are prefixed with :scope.
2) Unless the :scope is already in the selector.
I
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
Do you actually mean try out both :scope tacked on to the end of the rule
as well as :scope (note the space indicating a descendant selector)
tacked on to the beginning?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
Do you actually mean try out both :scope tacked on to the end of the rule
as well as :scope (note the
On 2011-06-16 19:40, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
I was convinced that @scoped worked exactly like this until this
thread. Apparently my previous reading of the spec was insufficiently
deep to spot the scoping/filtering difference.
FWIW, I also think that querySelector got this wrong. It should have
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
On 2011-06-16 19:40, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
I was convinced that @scoped worked exactly like this until this
thread. Apparently my previous reading of the spec was insufficiently
deep to spot the scoping/filtering
On 6/17/11 1:15 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Nitpick: prefixing :scope is only equivalent to limiting selector
matching to the current scope iff there is no ancestor scope.
Ancestor scope defined how?
For a scoped stylesheet, there is only one scope, I would think: the
parentNode of the style
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/16/11 2:32 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
What if we do this:
1) By default,style scoped implies that all selectors in this
stylesheet are prefixed with :scope.
2) Unless the :scope is already in the selector.
I
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/17/11 1:15 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Nitpick: prefixing :scope is only equivalent to limiting selector
matching to the current scope iff there is no ancestor scope.
Ancestor scope defined how?
For a scoped
On 6/17/11 1:39 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
Having another scoped stylesheet under an element further up.
Why does that matter for the way rules in _this_ sheet are treated?
-Boris
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
According to the HMTL5 spec, selectors are not limited to children of
the scoping element (the parent element of style scoped). For example:
div class=foo
div
style scoped
.foo p { display: none }
/style
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Roland Steiner wrote:
According to the HMTL5 spec, selectors are not limited to children of
the scoping element (the parent element of style scoped). For example:
div class=foo
div
style
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
XBL2 specifically gives the author control over this issue, because it
is indeed a problem in a widget scoped style scenario.
That's
50 matches
Mail list logo
