- From: sandwich via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:36:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Hey y'all, I just saw [the poll](https://developer.chrome.com/blog/help-css-nesting/#example-1-direct-nesting). Did I miss something? Why is the brackets syntax shown as requiring ampersands somewhere in the selector of _every_ nested rule? Isn't that redundant in the cases I've highlighted below?
```scss
/* Example 1 */
.foo {
color: #111;
{
& .bar { /* <---- Unnecessary? */
color: #eee;
}
}
}
/* Example 3 */
.foo, .bar {
color: blue;
{
& + .baz, /* <---- Unnecessary? */
&.qux {
color: red;
}
}
}
/* Example 4 */
figure {
margin: 0;
{
& > figcaption { /* <---- Unnecessary? */
background: lightgray;
{
& > p { /* <---- Unnecessary? */
font-size: .9rem;
}
}
}
}
}
/* Example 9 */
dialog {
border: none;
{
&::backdrop {
backdrop-filter: blur(25px);
}
& > form { /* <---- Unnecessary? */
display: grid;
{
& > :is(header, footer) { /* <---- Unnecessary? */
align-items: flex-start;
}
}
}
}
{
html:has(&[open]) {
overflow: hidden;
}
}
}
```
Doing this basically entirely negates the whole purpose of having brackets (or parentheses) enclose multiple nested selectors in the first place. Did I miss something? 😕
--
GitHub Notification of comment by sandwich
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4748#issuecomment-1198319686 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2022 15:36:33 UTC