- From: Xidorn Quan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:04:47 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> No, they're not, you're just desugaring wrong. ^_^ When desugaring, you replace the `&` with a `:matches()` containing the parent selector
So it's different from what preprocessors do currently? I don't think preprocessors are able to expand `c d :matches(a b)` to a selector pre-matches, are they?
Anyway, expanding them to `:matches` would only make them worse than `:matches`. Still, I don't believe you can expand any nested selector into a single complex selector. Consider for example, `a b { & c d { } e f & { } }`, what selector would you expand it to?
> No, we resolved to use the simpler version of :matches() specificity - it's the specificity of the most specific argument, regardless of matching.
Oh, okay, that's great. Then `:matches()` is probably not very hard to implement.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by upsuper
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2881#issuecomment-402714968 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2018 13:04:54 UTC