- From: Jen Simmons via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 20:41:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'd like to provide some context for those web developers commenting or reacting that they don't like this idea and would prefer every possible combination of selector syntax be allowed. The reason browsers did not implement a parent selector many years ago is because there are some pretty alarming performance concerns. It could have been very easy to choke a browser from the 2000s, making a web page slow to an unusable state. In fact, even in the first half of 2021, we were still not sure it was possible to implement `:has()`. Folks outside Apple were working on it, but got stuck. Antti (OP) is the one who figured out how to make `:has()` possible at all, given performance considerations. And we shipped an early version in Safari Technology Preview, so we could identify & fix bugs and further test performance. Everyone would love to implement `:has()` with no limitations. But that may be impossible. We have to make sure this new CSS selector doesn't give web developers a way to trash the performance of their website. This issue is for the CSSWG to discuss, as we figure out a way to create a selector that does what most developers need most of the time, without any bad consequences. Please don't give us a hard time about it. What we wish for and what we need to do because of reality don't always perfectly match. And it is looking terrific for an incredibly useful selector finally becoming reality, after years of pent up desire. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jensimmons Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6952#issuecomment-1013459726 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 14 January 2022 20:41:32 UTC