Implement ::shadow pseudo-element for access into shadow root




4 years ago
7 days ago


(Reporter: lohentertainment, Unassigned)


(Blocks 1 bug)


Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)





4 years ago
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.95 Safari/537.36


4 years ago
Version: 36 Branch → unspecified
This is one of the parts of the draft that we may not end up doing as-is, depending on what else happens in the shadow DOM styling story.

Comment 2

4 years ago
Link to specification for reference:

Comment 3

4 years ago
related issue: Implement >>> Selecting Through Shadows Selector for access into shadow root -
I think this might belong in DOM :: CSS Object Model - please correct if I am mistaken.
Component: DOM → DOM: CSS Object Model
If it's for implementing the pseudo-element in selectors, CSS Parsing and Computation is better.
Component: DOM: CSS Object Model → CSS Parsing and Computation
OS: Windows 7 → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Version: unspecified → Trunk
To clarify, "CSS Parsing and Computation" is about parsing CSS and figuring out the values of CSS properties.  "DOM: CSS Object model" is about scriptable reflections of CSS objects (rules, declarations, and so forth).  If no JS is involved, it's not a "DOM: CSS Object model" issue.

Comment 7

4 years ago
It is also should be implemented in JS (such 'querySelector' and perhaps 'closest').
Those automatically pick up changes to selector matching, generally.  But for the pseudo-element case they may need changes, yes, since right now those never match pseudo-element stuff.  That would probably be a separate bug, and putting that one in CSSOM may make sense.
See Also: → 1117572
Looks like the shadow-piercing descendant combinator >>> is the replacement for the ::shadow pseudo-element.[1] Boris, should this bug be marked as WONTFIX in favor of bug 1117572 or is it still too early?


Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)

Comment 10

3 years ago
As-is this is INVALID since the standard changed. It's also unclear whether we want to implement >>> at this time (I'll comment on the other bug).
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Regarding comment 10 I remove the ni for Boris.

Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.