- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:21:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@plinss after reading the recent developments in this thread, I'm a little confused about what you still see as an issue with the currently proposed syntax, apologies if I have missed something. When you were pushing back against option 3 and urging implementers to *really* research backtracking, I supported this and opened #7961 with a proposed algorithm to minimize perf impact, which served as a starting point, @tabatkins improved on it further, and eventually that discussion resulted in backtracking proving viable, thanks to the incredible efforts of @andruud et al, and we all rejoiced. But at this point, I just …don't understand what the further pushback is for, or what you are proposing. IMO the current algorithm is better than we could have ever hoped, it's easy to understand for authors, concise to type, fully compatible with `@scope`, and as compatible with Sass as possible without introducing undesirable warts into the language. Since this is Agenda+, could you please summarize your concerns and your proposed solution to them? Thank you! -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1499244329 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2023 15:21:28 UTC