Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-selectors] Reconsider removing selector list invalidation (#3082)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Reconsider removing selector list invalidation`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: kick the can down the road and think about this for Selectors 5`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Reconsider removing selector list invalidation<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3082<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Closely related issue<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We were talking about how invalidation is a problem, can't change for compat reasons.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Suggestion was have a special rule for unknown pseudo elements to treat as valid, but only for not prefixed ones. Wanted to ask WG if we should look into this<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If you don't recognize anything in the selector you invalidate the whole thing. Can't change whole rule, but maybe possible to change that rule only for pseudo elements<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Wanted to ask if anybody has thoughts on if this is something we should look into<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Opinions?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think people rely on it not to work as a form of browser sniffing<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Also one where I would ask who would impl first<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I'm hearing pushback<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Assume proposal you need to work for unprefixed, right?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yes<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/for unprefixed/only for unprefixed/<br>
&lt;emilio> dbaron: sorry, too much noise here today :(<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Then it's a question of accidentally relying on it not to work. Possibly less but have no data.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: I can't figure out if this is something we want to work on or if just table<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Still hearing more pushback then interest<br>
&lt;dael> florian: If we could make it work it would be great.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Want to know if we should a, accept b, reject or c, not now, maybe selectors 5<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Easiest to agree on is C<br>
&lt;bradk> C<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Anyone pushing for accept or reject?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections to kick the can down the road and think about this for Selectors 5?<br>
&lt;bradk> Kick the can to the table<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: kick the can down the road and think about this for Selectors 5<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Not satisfactory but until someone volunteers to collect data there's not much we can do.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: It's reflecting reality, though.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3082#issuecomment-440754399 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 17:47:36 UTC