- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:49:28 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed this issue, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Accept to make & valid everywhere, maps to :scope where not otherwise defined` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <fantasai> Topic:<br> <fantasai> 5. [selectors][css-nesting] Move nest-containing and nest-prefixed selector definitions to Selectors<br> <fantasai> github:<br> <fantasai> 5. [selectors][css-nesting] Move nest-containing and nest-prefixed selector definitions to Selectors<br> <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5745#issuecomment-1271874448<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: separate from discussion of which exactly nesting syntax<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: all of our proposals use the &<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: we have a few different contexts where we do nesting<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: and they don't currently allow &<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: right now assumption is that & only has meaning and possibly only valid in direct nesting<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: this is not great, particularly if use & > .foo<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: meaning of this is clear in any nestable context<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: so being able to copy-paste rule between different things, from nesting to @scope or querySelector<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: even globally, makes sense, just say parent context is :root<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: similarly in shadow DOM<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: so proposal is, to avoid authors being forced to edit selectors as they move nesting context<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: defined & to be valid and to have meaning in other context<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: if not defined specially, is equivalent to :scope<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: and this is already defined globally, top level it is host element of shadow stylesheet or :root otherwise<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: so make this analogous unless context explicitly defines it analogously<br> <fantasai> florian: Seems reasonable, but haven't thought about it much<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: I'm convinced, too<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: Objections?<br> <fantasai> ??: Gotten to comments about how used inside scope would be referencing, if possible to get up to another nested context<br> <fantasai> ??: Getting confused to understand, anyone can describe clearly?<br> <fantasai> ??: "What would the below example be? Would be unable to reference :scope in a nested context"<br> <TabAtkins> (comment is https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5745#issuecomment-1271646202)<br> <dbaron> s/??/PaulG/<br> <florian> s/??/PaulG/<br> <fantasai> The answer is later in the thread, where the call was to not to change meaning of :scope<br> <fantasai> s/??/PaulG/<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: Doesn't change the meaning, & is always using the local definition of it<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: Question was if you put nested style rule under the img style rule, what would & refer to, it would refer to img<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: Direct nesting doesn't change :scope<br> <fantasai> PaulG: Thanks<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: Back to objections?<br> <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept to make & valid everywhere, maps to :scope where not otherwise defined<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5745#issuecomment-1276466934 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2022 16:49:30 UTC