You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There should be no difference between closed and open shadow trees for ::theme. ::theme should always penetrate shadow boundaries. Otherwise, it defeats the primary use case of ::theme.
I would think that letting ::theme() penetrate closed shadows defeats the primary purpose of having a closed shadow in the first place. I'm happy to go either way, tho.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It’s important to note that ::part() and ::theme() offer absolutely zero new theoretical power.
However this isn't true, you already say in the following statement that you can avoid overstyling. This happens because ::part/::themecan't accidentally inherit styles whereas custom properties can.
With that in mind, if ::theme pierces shadow roots in the same way that custom variables do, is there any point in having ::theme over just implementing @apply, as it seems to me that any ::theme(some-name) would be identical to @apply(--some-name) under this shadow-piercing scheme.
No, @apply is still substantially different and suffers from several additional problems beyond what ::theme does. I outlined these in https://www.xanthir.com/b4o00.
In #2368 (comment), Ryosuke comments:
I would think that letting ::theme() penetrate closed shadows defeats the primary purpose of having a closed shadow in the first place. I'm happy to go either way, tho.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: