20150 2012-11-29 08:32:00 +0000 [Shadow]: "Nested tree" is defined, but "nesting tree" is only implied 2013-02-01 10:22:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WORKSFORME P2 normal --- 18428 1 sgrekhov dglazkov bugs public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 79095 0 sgrekhov 2012-11-29 08:32:00 +0000 There's a contradiction in @host @-rule matching criteria. Here https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#styles specification reads: "The @host @-rule matches a shadow host in the nesting tree." But below https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#host-at-rule there are the following: "The declarations of the rules in a @host @-rule must only be matched against the shadow host of the shadow tree in which the style is specified" So this is a contradiction. If there's a shadow tree containing the nested tree should @host rule be applied to the nested tree or to the shadow tree itself only? 79657 1 dglazkov 2012-12-07 18:39:08 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > There's a contradiction in @host @-rule matching criteria. Here > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index. > html#styles specification reads: > > "The @host @-rule matches a shadow host in the nesting tree." > > But below > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index. > html#host-at-rule there are the following: > > "The declarations of the rules in a @host @-rule must only be matched > against the shadow host of the shadow tree in which the style is specified" > > So this is a contradiction. If there's a shadow tree containing the nested > tree should @host rule be applied to the nested tree or to the shadow tree > itself only? Ah! I think I know what the problem is. I started using the term "nesting tree" as the opposite of "nested tree" but never captured this in writing. I think you're reading "nesting" and "nested" as being the same thing and thus seeing a contradiction. Let me fix this. 79660 2 dglazkov 2012-12-07 19:01:29 +0000 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/1c3901041ed5 79813 3 sgrekhov 2012-12-10 06:47:28 +0000 Now it's clear thank you. But... I was unable to create working @host @-rule. I'm not sure if this is an implementation issue or I was wrong in the syntaxis. An example of how @host rule should work would be very helpful. That's what I tried: var d = document; d.body.innerHTML = '<ul class="cls">' + '<li id="li1" class="shadow">1</li>' + '<li id="li2" class="shadow2">2</li>' + '<li id="li3" class="shadow">3</li>' + '<li id="li4">4</li>' + '<li id="li5" class="shadow">5</li>' + '<li id="li6" class="shadow2">6</li>' + '</ul>'; var host = d.querySelector('.cls'); //Shadow root to play with var s = new SR(host); var div = d.createElement('div'); div.innerHTML ='<ul><content select=".shadow"></content></ul>'; s.appendChild(div); var style = d.createElement('style'); style.innerHTML = '' + '@host {' + 'ul {display:none;}' + '}'; s.appendChild(style); What should be correct @host rule that makes shadow host content invisible? I also tried '@host {' + 'div {display:none;}' + '}'; But this don't work anyway. So, please, add the example. 79816 4 sgrekhov 2012-12-10 09:23:08 +0000 Forgot to add that I really read 'nesting' as 'nested' at first... 82465 5 sgrekhov 2013-02-01 09:44:25 +0000 Works in Chrome Canary. Closed 82466 6 bugs 2013-02-01 10:22:27 +0000 That is not a reason to close a spec bug. Is the spec ok now?