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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-nesting] request to pick up the css-nesting proposal

From: Jonathan Neal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 18:16:05 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-395515861-1528395364-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
As an author who adopted the syntax outlined in this specification with a transpiler, I can say that my teams found ampersand nesting _more_ readable than Sass nesting. Once implemented, my transpiler received no complaints as to this requirement, that I recall.

I’ll sober that opinion by acknowledging that I’m not sure what [400k weekly installs](https://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=postcss-nesting) actually translates to in ”_users who would actually report issues_”. I’m just saying — this spec has a reasonable number of early adopters.

What users did complain about on occasion was the lack of selector concatenation (e.g. `&-modified-classname`). However, I believe the spec got it right, both for the reasons Tab has mentioned, and also for the reasons mentioned by a notable Sass expert, Hugo Giraudel, who made [several arguments](https://www.sitepoint.com/beware-selector-nesting-sass/) against ampersand concatenation, which he demonstrated lead to naturally ambiguous selectors that actually hinder authors.

Anyway, I would echo what @FremyCompany has said; from my point of view I don't see strong reason to change the current spec. I’m so glad to see it being considered.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jonathantneal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2701#issuecomment-395515861 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2018 18:16:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 7 June 2018 18:16:09 UTC