- From: Peter Linss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 18:27:05 +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. Ok, let me try to be clear. I'm very grateful for all the work that went into the current look-ahead proposal. I believe it's a large improvement over our previous option 3, and I don't see any room for improvement at the moment. I'm prepared to live with it. However, it still does have issues, see [my list above](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1496776853). These are far less severe than option 3's issues, but remain issues. We also have the option of an alternate approach, using an at-rule, in one (or even several) of the previously proposed forms. That approach eliminates all the issues with the look-ahead approach at the cost of a small amount of typing for authors. All I'm asking for at this point is a sanity check. If we pull the trigger on the look-ahead approach, there are ramifications that we're going to have to live with for a very long time. It is a parser change at the end of the day, and as I have said previously, those always prove dangerous. I want the WG to take a beat, look at all the options, consider all the advantages and disadvantages of each, and make a final consensus-driven call, rather than just move ahead due to inertia and exhaustion. -- GitHub Notification of comment by plinss Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1499457581 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 18:27:07 UTC