#593: Early design review of light-DOM CSS Scope proposal

Visit on Github.

Opened Jan 5, 2021

HIQaH! QaH! TAG!

I'm requesting early TAG review of my proposal for light-DOM CSS Scope.

Previous scope proposals have attempted to address highly-isolated use-cases along side the more light-touch issues of namespacing and selector-proximity. Those attempts were largely abandoned in favor of Shadow-DOM solutions -- which strongly prioritize strong isolation. In the meantime, third-party tools (eg CSS Modules) and conventions (eg BEM) are more often used by authors to provide low-isolation scoping for light-DOM components. I'm proposing a native CSS approach to those use-cases.

  • Explainer: https://github.com/oddbird/css-sandbox/blob/main/src/scope/explainer.md
  • Security and Privacy self-review: This proposal does not expose anything new, and has no impact on security or privacy
  • Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
    • Miriam Suzanne, @mirisuzanne, Invited Expert, author
    • Mason Freed, @mfreed7, Google, contributor
    • Yu Han, @yuzhe-han, Google, contributor
    • Rune Lillesveen, @lilles, Google, contributor
    • Rossen Atanassof, @atanassov, Microsoft, co-chair
    • Alan Stearns @astearns, Adobe, co-chair
  • Organization/project driving the design: CSSWG
  • External status/issue trackers for this feature (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status):

Further details:

  • I have reviewed the TAG's API Design Principles
  • The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future): CSSWG
  • The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known): CSSWG
  • Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design: CSSWG Issue
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design: No known opposition
  • This work is being funded by: Google

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as 💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify @mirisuzanne and @lilles

Discussions

2021-01-Kronos

Minutes

  • Querying logic of "match A down the tree until B" should be separated out into a selector
  • There should be an implicit :scope before scoped selectors that do not contain a :scope, which might already be the case but it isn't clear. Tess has asked a clarifying question.
2021-03-08

Minutes

Lea: our feedback is being brainstormed on... no news as far as I know

Dan: so pending ext feedback still?

Lea: believe so... feedback was that the points make sense and they are working on it...

Dan: if they're really working on it then it's pending editor update.. that's the label that means we're waiting for them to make a change that reflects the feedback. Could ping again to avoid stalled.

Ken: ask to ping when something new to share

Dan: future milestone, see if it has progressed then

Ken: will leave that comment

2021-05-Arakeen

Minutes

This is still pending external feedback.

2021-08-30

Minutes

Lea: still pending external feedback. Looks like they're still iterating in CSS WG

Dan: Rossen said it would be okay to close. What further value are we adding?

Lea: if I remember right, last time we looked is our main feedback point is that this is two things in one. There is a different scoping mechanism that doesn't exist in css, and also a way to select elements. Our concern was that this might have been better as some sort of selector. I'm not sure if that has been addressed or explored.

Dan: lets take that to the plenary in that case

2021-08-30

Minutes

Dan: I think we need Lea

Rossen: is it urgent?

Dan: yes, it's already marked as proposed closing but also pending external feedback

Rossen: seems like it ended on a wedge back in may. Since then if I was them I'd be thinking we were okay with it.

Dan: we should make it clear. Looks like there's a Pr which was added in CSS land on the basis of our feedback in March and we should be feeding back that it looks fine. We need that feedback from Ken and Lea, who left the feedback.

Rossen: sure. Anything remaining there that we need to work out? Probably safe to move forward to closing. Let Lea land the closing comment.

2021-09-20

Minutes

Dan: there was a response to Lea's comment...

Lea: I think the main issue with this is that it introduces two things - oen to do with selection logic, one to do with scoping. The scoping thing is ?? but selection thing looks like it would fit better as a selector, but difficult to invent a selector around it, but she's listing ideas in her post. Maybe we should say it's a good direction and close it. Can't just keep pushing a selector, if they looked into it and it's not possible..

Dan: it's happening in CSS WG.. it's CSS WG's job

Lea: yeah

Dan: as long as we think it's not breaking the web we ought to close it

Rossen: makes sense. Feedback provided already is outlining different options and opportunities to explore. As TAG we've done our job in providing feedback, we can't design the feature

Lea: resolution satisfied? [will comment and close]

2021-09-Gethen

Minutes

Sangwhan: we touched on this. CSS selection shadow dom and light dom...

Lea: last time we gave feedback we had concerns about this being a way to select elements that is not a selector. I left a comment asking if there are any updates.. and if working group has explored reusing selection mechanisms...