I'm splitting this out from the discussions for handling other types of anonymous content (bug 1292662). This is lower priority than that stuff, since shadow DOM support is probably involved than XBL and NAC support, and fewer of our tests depend on it. This is the part of the spec that is most relevant to us: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-scoping-1/#shadow-dom
We don't have Shadow DOM v1 implementation, so at least the Shadow DOM part of this bug shouldn't block shipping stylo. XBL and NAC need to be supported well enough.
Bobby, is this Shadow DOM bug still relevant? Do we need XBL and NAC support if we are not using Stylo for chrome? (bug 1294570)
We already support XBL and NAC. We'll need shadow DOM support at some point but we don't ship shadow DOM yet, so it doesn't block shipping in 57.
Summary: stylo: Shadow DOM support (and XBL and NAC support?) → stylo: Shadow DOM support
(In reply to Bobby Holley (:bholley) (busy with Stylo) from comment #0) > This is the part of the spec that is most relevant to us: > https://www.w3.org/TR/css-scoping-1/#shadow-dom The one above is for shadow DOM v0 and outdated. The latest spec for shadow DOM v1 is https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scoping/#intro. Note '>>>' combinator  is still under discussion and requires consensus .  https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scoping/#deep-combinator  https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/640  https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/78
As reference, some illustration that what styling of shadow DOM v1 expects. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-components/shadowdom#styling
status-firefox57=wontfix unless someone thinks this bug should block 57
Summary: stylo: Shadow DOM support → [meta] stylo: Shadow DOM support
I don't think it's worth keeping this open. Stylo supports Shadow DOM now. Specific issues should be filed against bug 1405937.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: a year ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.