W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-nesting] Conflicts in proposal with Sass/Less

From: Matthew Dean via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 22:44:43 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-406744711-1532126682-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> Preprocessors can change. Preprocessor syntax can be deprecated and transformed, often automatically. Browser specs are forever. Toolmakers need to keep the long view here. Authors deserve to have the best syntax that can be provided natively by browsers. Tools like Sass and Less have a much shorter half-life and need to get out of the way when the advances that we've championed become welcomed standards.

@chriseppstein  Fair. Is this the best syntax though? I don't know. I feel like you and I have made different points about `&` as its currently used in preprocessors being problematic for different reasons. You've pointed out issues w/ concatenation/partial classes, which, while I disagree its an issue in preprocessors, have my own grudges with `&`-soup as somehow being a necessary feature of nesting. It's the path preprocessors went down, but it's not the only way to declaratively describe nesting. It's just one way. So we're both advocating for following a different path, despite working on and advocating those languages. Therefore, there is at least something there to look at in regards to room for improvement.

The idea (nesting) is sound. The cowpath is maybe the right cowpath, but maybe it's not the right paving stones, so to speak.

GitHub Notification of comment by matthew-dean
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2937#issuecomment-406744711 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 20 July 2018 22:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:33 UTC