21924 2013-05-03 21:40:42 +0000 [Shadow]: Remove pseudo-classes/elements from selector fragments 2013-05-10 01:29:01 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 18428 1 dglazkov dglazkov jonas mrbkap wchen public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 87227 0 dglazkov 2013-05-03 21:40:42 +0000 They complicate implementation and are not super-useful. We can add them later. 87439 1 dglazkov 2013-05-08 17:32:32 +0000 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/0a5eaa16902a I commented these out for now. 87454 2 jonas 2013-05-08 18:58:56 +0000 Rhe first list in "4.3 Matching Insertion Points" is really hard to understand. I think I know what it's trying to say, but I don't understand how it's trying to say it. I wish there was some way to simply say that we're matching against the elements that are being inserted into that shadow tree, and that the comma-separated "compound selectors" are matched against those elements. I.e. express it in terms of pattern matching rather than selecting. But I don't know if CSS has that vocabulary. Something else that I realized is that we can, and probably should, allow the negation pseudo-class. But the contents of that pseudo class must still be the same types of selectors that we normally require. 87459 3 dglazkov 2013-05-08 19:47:18 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Rhe first list in "4.3 Matching Insertion Points" is really hard to > understand. I think I know what it's trying to say, but I don't understand > how it's trying to say it. > > I wish there was some way to simply say that we're matching against the > elements that are being inserted into that shadow tree, and that the > comma-separated "compound selectors" are matched against those elements. > I.e. express it in terms of pattern matching rather than selecting. But I > don't know if CSS has that vocabulary. I agree, that whole section needs to be rewritten. > Something else that I realized is that we can, and probably should, allow > the negation pseudo-class. But the contents of that pseudo class must still > be the same types of selectors that we normally require. So, should I uncomment them back? :) 87464 4 dglazkov 2013-05-08 22:02:56 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > > Something else that I realized is that we can, and probably should, allow > > the negation pseudo-class. But the contents of that pseudo class must still > > be the same types of selectors that we normally require. > > So, should I uncomment them back? :) Ah, I misread your comment. Can we put negation on the back-burner until you guys have an implementation? 87467 5 jonas 2013-05-08 22:35:13 +0000 Sure, I don't feel strongly. I'd suspect you'll quicker see an implementation which supports :not() if it's in the spec right away though. 87513 6 dglazkov 2013-05-09 20:57:00 +0000 I rewrote the text around matching criteria. It should be simpler/clearer/better: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/c951bba69aa9 Please take a look: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#satisfying-matching-criteria 87526 7 jonas 2013-05-10 01:29:01 +0000 Great!