Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-scoping] Inclusive vs exclusive lower boundary (#6577)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `lower boundaries`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: make exclusive lower boundaries the default and add an example to the spec on how to do inclusive`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> topic: lower boundaries<br>
&lt;emilio> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6577<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: with the lower boundary selector as part of the scope, there's a question of whether they're part or not of the scope<br>
&lt;emilio> ... there's use cases for both, initially we spec'd as inclusive<br>
&lt;emilio> ... so lower boundaries are part of the scope<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6577#issuecomment-1021035991<br>
&lt;emilio> ... exclusive allows to include explicitly with `> *`<br>
&lt;emilio> ... we want to add a keyword to `@scope`<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... to say whether you want the boundaries included<br>
&lt;flackr> q+<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack TabAtkins<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: I'm fine with the kw<br>
&lt;emilio> ... but I think exclusive is better default<br>
&lt;emilio> ... also it's trivial to turn exclusive into inclusive<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack flackr<br>
&lt;emilio> flackr: tab covered what I was going to say<br>
&lt;florian> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... exclusive is a little bit more ergonomic<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack florian<br>
&lt;emilio> florian: does `> *` work if there's no child?<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: if no element matches the lower bound nothing gets excluded which is what you want<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: I guess main argument to have it a keyword is readability, is it clear?<br>
&lt;emilio> TabAtkins: I think it does what it says and says what it does<br>
&lt;emilio> ... inclusive / exclusive ranges are a perennial source of confusion in every context<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: we can always add a keyword if we want to<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: So proposal is make exclusive the default and add an example to the spec on how to do inclusive right?<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: yes, is default for upper bound inclusive?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> they're both inclusive, the lower bound just includes elements in the forbid list ^_^<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: yeah, and no use cases for exclusive<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVED: make exclusive lower boundaries the default and add an example to the spec on how to do inclusive<br>
&lt;emilio> miriam: aside, I want people to look at how proximity affects cascade priority<br>
&lt;emilio> ... not to discuss today<br>
&lt;miriam> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6790<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6577#issuecomment-1248673208 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2022 21:55:27 UTC