Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors] The forgiving nature of :has breaks jQuery when used with a complex :has selector (#7676)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Topic: [selectors] The forgiving nature of :has breaks jQuery when used with a complex :has selector`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emeyer> Topic: Topic: [selectors] The forgiving nature of :has breaks jQuery when used with a complex :has selector<br>
&lt;emeyer> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676<br>
&lt;Rossen_> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676#issuecomment-1249958942<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: Added to agenda by Elika, the last comment was someone asking abotu HTTPArchive data collection<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: We need a follow-up, so to figure out who needs to do what to move this forward<br>
&lt;emeyer> …we really need to know if we’re making this change or not, and what we need to know to decide that<br>
&lt;emeyer> fremy: Question is, what’s the behavior in Chromium and did it change?<br>
&lt;emeyer> Rossen: Who is the last person who updated, a committer on Chromium or?<br>
&lt;miriam> They maintain postCSS I think<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: We need someone to follow up on this. It can’t just sit here.<br>
&lt;emeyer> emilio: It seems Chromium now has WebKit’s original behavior<br>
&lt;emeyer> Rossen: Who can take a more proactive approach to this?<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: We could take dbaron’s proposal to limit forgiving parsing behavior to :is() and :where()<br>
&lt;chrishtr> I can ask andruud async for an update on httparchive research<br>
&lt;emeyer> …If we add strict parsing to :has() it becomes confusing, limiting as David proposed is simpler<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/add strict/have forgiving/<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/confusing/confusing, as some selectors have forgiving parsing and others (e.g. :not()) don't/<br>
&lt;Rossen_> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676#issuecomment-1249958942<br>
&lt;chrishtr> There are also some use counters about to go to stable channel, see https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/RJrIxJA9LYw/m/csOGouXNAAAJ<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/is simpler/is simpler because authors only need to remember that these two selectors have forgiving parsing and nothing else does; and also authors can control where it goes by wrapping with :is() wherever they want it/<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Perhaps we should punt to next week since we still need HTTParchive data<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: We only need that if we don’t take David’s proposal to narrow forgiving parsing down to :is() and :where()<br>
&lt;fantasai> but either way I'm okay to punt to next week<br>
&lt;emeyer> Rossen: I’m happy to push this to next week to allow people to take a deeper look<br>
&lt;emeyer> …It doesn’t sound like people are ready to make a decision, so I don’t think we should spend more time on this issue<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676#issuecomment-1332327646 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2022 15:15:41 UTC