Skip to content
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

[Shadow]: Consider a <content> selector for "nodes not otherwise distributed" (bugzilla: 22268) #64

Closed
hayatoito opened this issue May 25, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@hayatoito
Copy link
Contributor

Title: [Shadow]: Consider a selector for "nodes not otherwise distributed" (bugzilla: 22268)

Migrated from: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268


comment: 0
comment_url: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268#c0
Jan Miksovsky wrote on 2013-06-04 20:33:21 +0000.

See the thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/polymer-dev/mTM1-rByfZY for a limitation of the current spec.

The current design of means the default insertion point for all nodes not otherwise distributed (via select="...") must always appear last in the template. This could lead to situations where it is difficult to update a template and reposition this default insertion point before other insertion points that have explicit select="..." clauses.

It would be beneficial if there were a way to explicit indicate that element should pick up all nodes not otherwise distribution to other insertion points. Alternatively, the meaning of the plain form could be changed to: "insert here all nodes not otherwise distributed, including nodes distributed to insertion points which follow this default insertion point".


comment: 1
comment_url: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268#c1
Dominic Cooney wrote on 2013-06-05 06:50:43 +0000.

You may be able to work around this problem by using CSS Regions.

Two slightly more powerful mechanisms than the proposal to make happen "last" are:

  1. Distribute to elements not in document order, but in selector specificity order. Make with no selector less specific than any selector. Document order of element is a fallback for tiebreaking.
  2. Let the author separately specify an order to do distribution.

comment: 2
comment_url: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268#c2
Jan Miksovsky wrote on 2013-06-06 00:42:16 +0000.

I think you understand the use case, and defer to your judgment on the best solution. My proposal was just an example.

For reference: I did try using CSS regions to workaround this problem, but am unable to get this to work. See http://jsbin.com/areqez/1/edit. I'll follow up separately on that.


comment: 3
comment_url: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268#c3
Michael Labriola wrote on 2013-10-14 19:21:00 +0000.

Personally I like @Dominic-(migrated-from-bugzilla-to-avoid-pinnging-users-in-github)'s first proposal. I think the root of the problem is that node distribution is in document order instead of the order of a form of specificity.


comment: 4
comment_url: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268#c4
Steve Orvell wrote on 2013-11-07 15:28:28 +0000.

I prefer Dominic's suggestion #2. The author could specify selectIndex attribute on insertion points which would conceptually act like tabIndex.

I think the problem with #1 is that the set of selectors used for insertion points is already highly limited. I think, in practice, this would make using specificity problematic.


comment: 5
comment_url: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22268#c5
Anne wrote on 2015-04-27 05:45:15 +0000.

This might be moot if we get an API.

@hayatoito
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let me close this bug. This is obsolete.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant