[kerkeslager]

> The shadow DOM can inherit styles if you specify the styles that you want to inherit.

Ah yes, I've heard about this "mixing CSS into your HTML".

The entire point of CSS is that you can write selectors that can affect anything, import it in the header, and you're done. If you're telling me I have to import a new CSS file (or repeat myself and import the same CSS file) inside of every custom element I create, obviously I thought of that. I'm telling you that's a terrible, awful idea, because it breaks the fundamental way CSS is supposed to work.

Consider: if I'm distributing a library of web components, which of my users' CSS files that I know nothing about do I include? Did you read the example I already gave? The solution you're offering doesn't solve the problem I've described.

> Additionally, web components work just fine without the shadow DOM, it's optional,

You should read the post you're responding to in order to find out why that also causes problems.

> but for a great many custom elements you don't want them inheriting all the styles, because that can break the custom element.

...just like all of the rest of CSS. We have strategies for dealing with that. The only strategy you've suggested for doing the opposite is a completely useless non-solution.

[azangru]

> Consider: if I'm distributing a library of web components, which of my users' CSS files that I know nothing about do I include?

If you are distributing a library of web components, wouldn't you provide a CSS api for the things that are supposed to be styleable via CSS custom properties and styleable parts?

Case in point: consider Shoelace.

> a completely useless non-solution

Consider the existing libraries of web components — Shoelace for something generic, RedHat's Patternfly or Adobe's Spectrum for something company-specific. How much of a non-solution are they, really?

[kerkeslager]

> If you are distributing a library of web components, wouldn't you provide a CSS api for the things that are supposed to be styleable via CSS custom properties and styleable parts?

If you read my previous comments you'll see that the parts that should be styleable--i.e. the content of the component I've defined--are user-defined, so no, I can't document them.

> Consider the existing libraries of web components — Shoelace for something generic, RedHat's Patternfly or Adobe's Spectrum for something company-specific. How much of a non-solution are they, really?

If you read what I said in context, I'm not saying components are useless, I'm saying the unstyled shadow DOM is a completely useless non-solution to the problem I've described.

[s17n]

> I'm telling you that's a terrible, awful idea, because it breaks the fundamental way CSS is supposed to work.

The "way CSS is supposed to work" was always a bad idea and is totally unworkable for large projects / teams. Throwing it out and simply inlining all your styles is absolutely the right call.

[kerkeslager]

Eh, there's some validity to that, but the worst of both worlds is to have both a CSS file and then a bunch of inline styles, which is what people here are proposing.

Inline styles make a lot of sense if you're using webcomponents pervasively, but there's a high up-front cost to doing that because you'll have to either a) define web components for everything you might want to style, including existing elements like <p>, or b) repeat yourself a lot.