- 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