Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-scoping] Inclusive vs exclusive lower boundary (#6577)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Inclusive vs exclusive lower boundary`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fremy> Topic: Inclusive vs exclusive lower boundary<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6577<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: the scoping proposal takes two selector lists (the second one is optional)<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: the first one species when the scope starts<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: the second one specifies from which nested elements the scope stops<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: scoping views include lower boundaries in the scope<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: but sometimes the boundaries are excluded of the scope<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: there are two options, and feedback is that both might be useful<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: there is a proposal for a syntax<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: but me and fantasai where willing for the two syntaxes to look similar<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: it's not clear yet if both options are needed<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: a few comments from the bottom, there are a few proposals<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> vastly prefers a keyword over making the number of slashes significant<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: depending if they are in the same parenthesis or not, we can use a slash or not<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: one question is that, should we add a keyword for the exclusivity<br>
&lt;astearns> ack TabAtkins<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: or a special separator<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: I am weakly in favor of allowing both<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: our current default sounds reasonable though<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: I don't like slash vs double-slash<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: because it's not understandable at a glance<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: I would rather add a modifier for the other behavior<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: the issue with keywords, is that they could be part of the selector<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: then we should put a function around the lower bound maybe?<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: I think we should explore this further<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: are there reservations about adding this choice at all?<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: sounds like not<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: let's take it back to the issue for future iterations<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: another thing, do we want to merge the two syntaxes into one that works in both places<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: I haven't looked into this much, but that sounds like a good goal to have<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: seems like it would be nice need if it's possible, indeed<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: slight differences are a possible trade-offs though<br>
&lt;fremy> miriam: sounds good, thanks for the feedback, we will take it back in the thread<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6577#issuecomment-1076569496 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2022 17:04:58 UTC