-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 656
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[css-shadow-parts] need definition of which pseudo-classes can follow :part() that is sufficient to produce interoperability #10787
Comments
Perhaps a special case: I think it should probably be clear that |
Agreed. I think the definitely-disallowed ones are:
Slightly uncertain ones that I think should still be allowed:
And I think the rest are all clearly fine. I made this list by looking over https://drafts.csswg.org/indexes/#selectors which gets selectors from across the spec landscape, so should be pretty complete (anything it's missing are just mis-tagged). |
I think also probably disallowed (as structural) should be |
I'd considered them, but left them out as I figured they could never match. But you're right, for clarity they should be disallowed explicitly. |
Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1
Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futhark@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1351997}
Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futhark@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1351997}
Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futhark@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1351997}
…sses after ::part()., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Allow :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(). Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futhark@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1351997} -- wpt-commits: a75813a805d96b9ef5236a2b31fe877967dc881a wpt-pr: 48013
…sses after ::part()., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Allow :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(). Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futharkchromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaronchromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main{#1351997} -- wpt-commits: a75813a805d96b9ef5236a2b31fe877967dc881a wpt-pr: 48013 UltraBlame original commit: c38fc2e2446120b0a73631d83718dc055830e074
…sses after ::part()., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Allow :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(). Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futharkchromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaronchromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main{#1351997} -- wpt-commits: a75813a805d96b9ef5236a2b31fe877967dc881a wpt-pr: 48013 UltraBlame original commit: c38fc2e2446120b0a73631d83718dc055830e074
…sses after ::part()., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Allow :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(). Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futharkchromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaronchromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main{#1351997} -- wpt-commits: a75813a805d96b9ef5236a2b31fe877967dc881a wpt-pr: 48013 UltraBlame original commit: c38fc2e2446120b0a73631d83718dc055830e074
…sses after ::part()., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Allow :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(). Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futhark@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1351997} -- wpt-commits: a75813a805d96b9ef5236a2b31fe877967dc881a wpt-pr: 48013
…sses after ::part()., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests Allow :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(). Based on the discussion in w3c/csswg-drafts#10806 and also in w3c/csswg-drafts#10787, I think the conclusion from #10806 applies to pseudo-classes as well, and I should reverse my earlier decision to disallow the :active-view-transition pseudo-classes after ::part(), even though today it is not possible for them to match. This makes that change behind the CSSPartAllowsMoreSelectorsAfter flag (status:experimental), which also contains other related changes. This matches WebKit's current implementation of those pseudo-classes. Bug: 40623497 Change-Id: I591fe30bb9e6c3a0953df318919f60dd6962d4a1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5839421 Reviewed-by: Rune Lillesveen <futhark@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1351997} -- wpt-commits: a75813a805d96b9ef5236a2b31fe877967dc881a wpt-pr: 48013
The spec for
::part()
says:This wording probably isn't precise enough to lead all implementors to classify every pseudo-class (works after
::part()
or not) in the same way. I just added a test to WPT that exercises a bunch of these cases. (See also #10786 for a separate issue that relates to the same test. And also see #9795 for a case where people previously disagreed about this classification.)We probably need a clearer definition of which selectors do or don't work here, and it probably needs to somehow end up in the way that we define pseudo-classes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: