- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 00:50:04 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
And regarding to defaulting to descentant combinator, it's not clear to me at all why ```css .foo { color: blue; @nest; /* BTW, I'm not even sure if this is needed :( Would the colon suffice to switch the parser? */ :hover { color: cyan } } ``` would be like ```css .foo { color: blue; } .foo :hover { color: cyan; } ``` and not e.g. ```css .foo { color: blue; } .foo:hover { color: cyan; } ``` I think requiring `&` makes the result much easier to understand. I would only allow to omit a leading `&` when the selector starts with a combinator symbol. And since the descendant combinator doesn't have any symbol of its own, then require explicit `&` (or reconsider adding `>>` as the proper descendant combinator). I know that `.foo:has(:hover)` defaults to the descendant combinator, but at least there this behavior is kinda implied by the `:has` name, and it would be pointless if it resolved to `.foo:hover`. That's not the case with nesting. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7834#issuecomment-1272181629 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 8 October 2022 00:50:05 UTC