Skip to content

Conversation

@andruud
Copy link
Member

@andruud andruud commented Jan 31, 2023

No description provided.

@andruud andruud requested a review from tabatkins January 31, 2023 09:58
@andruud
Copy link
Member Author

andruud commented Jan 31, 2023

@tabatkins: A question in the form of a PR: did you intend to lift this restriction in ed18327 ?

It seems odd to have good rationale for a certain ShadowDOM behavior (2.8), and then not allow @property in shadow trees.

@tabatkins tabatkins merged commit 0a97705 into w3c:main Feb 3, 2023
@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

...yes, I did intend to lift the restriction in that other commit. Thanks for the catch. ^_^

@foolip
Copy link
Member

foolip commented Feb 9, 2023

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor

emilio commented Mar 12, 2024

@andruud @tabatkins @astearns: Was dis discussed in the working group / was there a resolution on this?

It seems weird that we "leak" property definitions from shadow roots into the global scope. But also the ordering of the registrations etc needs to be defined. I don't think right now we have a dependency between the order of stylesheets inside vs. outside a shadow tree.

@andruud
Copy link
Member Author

andruud commented Mar 12, 2024

ordering of the registrations etc needs to be defined

Indeed, I've also wondered about this.

@astearns
Copy link
Member

@emilio I think this is a relevant resolution (but a bit vague) w3c/csswg-drafts#1995 (comment)

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor

emilio commented Mar 12, 2024

@astearns there's no mention of @property there, nor in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scoping-1/#shadow-names which was the section that discussion was about?

@astearns
Copy link
Member

@emilio more discussion of @property: #939

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

5 participants