- From: Johannes Odland via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:25:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> <emeyer> astearns: Because of the weirdness about descendant selectors, should we define an actual optional syntax for descendant selectors in nest and @scope situations?
> <fantasai> s/allow ing/allowed to be written as relative selectors in/
> <Rossen_> ack astearns
> <emeyer> TabAtkins: I think we should but that should be a different discussion
> <emeyer> Rossen: Please open an issue on that if we don’t already have one, Alan?
Was there an existing issue on descendant selectors?
Are you considering an explicit [`>>` descendant syntax](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/641) to be able to do something like this?
```css
.a { >> .b .c { }}
/* .a .b .c { } */
/* As compared to */
.a { .b .c { }}
/* .a :is(.b .c) { } */
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by johannesodland
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7854#issuecomment-1293967142 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2022 19:25:45 UTC