1293844 - (stylo-shadow) [meta] stylo: Shadow DOM support

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect, P5)

Description

[Bobby Holley (:bholley)]

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

Comment 1

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

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.

Comment 2

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

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)

Comment 3

[Bobby Holley (:bholley)]

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.

Comment 4

[Ben Tian (inactive)]

(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The one above is for shadow DOM v0 and outdated.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 [1] is still under discussion and requires consensus [2][3].

[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scoping/#deep-combinator
[2] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/640
[3] https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/78

Comment 5

[Ben Tian (inactive)]

As reference, some illustration that what styling of shadow DOM v1 expects.
https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-components/shadowdom#styling

Comment 6

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

status-firefox57=wontfix unless someone thinks this bug should block 57

Comment 7

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

I don't think it's worth keeping this open. Stylo supports Shadow DOM now. Specific issues should be filed against bug 1405937.