- From: Chris Harrelson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 23:35:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
If we end up going with the proposed syntax, I also think we should consider removing the first-selector-starts-with-`&` mode and instead require `@nest;` if you want to go into the alternate parsing mode. This would avoid programming errors for authors. Example: suppose you have this selector: ``` .foo { &.bar {} .baz & {} } ``` And then you decide actually the `.bar` rule was not needed for some reason. Then you go ahead and edit it to delete that line, resulting in: ``` .foo { .baz & {} } ``` This selector is now an error, because there was no rule starting with an `&` and `@nest` was not present in the rule or at the start of the selector block. The result could be a silently broken site where all the `baz` widgets are broken mysteriously. Removing the first-selector-starts-with-`&` would also make use of `@nest;` purely opt-in, and have no side-effects on authors who prefer not to use it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by chrishtr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7834#issuecomment-1272160692 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 7 October 2022 23:35:34 UTC