- From: Jonathan Neal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 19:09:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@battaglr, you responded similarly to a Twitter thread linking here, where the 2 raised complaints were how nesting can lead to:
1. ambiguous and unsearchable selectors via raw appending (`&-bem-class`); and,
2. unnecessarily and deeply nested selectors (`& foo { & bar { & qux { & etc {} } } }`.
Here is a link to that thread: https://twitter.com/jon_neal/status/1004962076824145921, and please let me know if I am misrepresenting your concerns, Luciano.
I think both are worthy complaints. Thankfully, the spec does not allow arbitrary selector appending like Sass. This is even considered [a mistake in Sass](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2701#issuecomment-395572904). This will be a non-issue. 😄🎉
I see the second complaint as a pro _and_ a con. Nesting _would_ make writing CSS selector chains a lot easier, and that _could_ lead to poorly written CSS. However, these selectors would not be technically worse than what one can already do by writing out long, complex CSS selectors. I think Sass has proven these benefits _and_ abuses, which means we can better provide author guidance.
Used wisely or unwisely, nesting would offer authors less selector repetition and more structurally organized rules.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by jonathantneal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2701#issuecomment-395991788 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2018 19:09:32 UTC