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 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 descendant of the scope? >> >> No, it's an if/else. "#foo" would be equivalent to ":scope #foo". On >> the other hand, "#foo :scope" would be unaltered. > > So you're suggesting it would be impossible for a rule to match the scope > itself without the author having to explicitly qualify it with :scope? That > seems very unintuitive.
Yes, though you'd just write the selector explicitly as ":scope". I believe it's a relatively minor issue compared to the larger non-intuitiveness of @scoped being a filter rather than a scope. I think it's pretty easy to learn that bare selectors only apply to children of the scoping element, not the scoping element itself. ~TJ