- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 19:03:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
We discussed this as an approach to container queries, and it's probably good to consider them as part of this conversation. If the only syntax is selector-based, it makes larger changes (impacting multiple selectors) more repetitive – though nesting could help that problem:
```css
.card:container(width > 30em) {
& .card-image { … }
& .card-content { … }
& .card-footer { … }
}
```
With container queries specifically, this also introduces a different way to solve the "named container" problem – but it can be kinda confusing as well. Right now we always have the selector-target query its nearest container:
```css
/* body and card are both containers */
body, .card { contain: inline-size style layout;
@container (width > 30em) {
.card { /* card queries the size of body */ }
.card .content { /* content queries the size of card */ }
}
.card:container(width > 30em) .content {
/* card queries the size of body, in order to update content */
}
```
I don't see it as a universally better solution than the at-rule syntax, but I do think it can provide some interesting trade-offs. Interested to see where this conversation goes.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6247#issuecomment-849042039 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2021 19:03:12 UTC