- From: DarkWiiPlayer via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:33:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Personally, I can't confirm that scopes adding to the specificity is more intuitive. Either way of handling this seems easy enough to build a mental model around: In the *yes* case, one can think of the upper boundary as a sort of fancier descendant selector, as that is, in a sense, what the scope does. In the *no* case, one can think of scopes the same way as media queries: They only restrict when or where a rule applies. The latter seems a bit more consistent to me, because 1. `@scope` looks similar to `@media`, so I expect it to work in a similar way. 2. Unless prefixed with `:scope`, selectors inside the scope's block aren't entirely nested inside the scope. This breaks the mental model of concatenating the selectors anyway. From a practical perspective, I don't see much value in having scopes change specificity, as that is needless overlap with `@layer`s in my view. The two can be easily combined. -- GitHub Notification of comment by DarkWiiPlayer Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8500#issuecomment-1448392309 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2023 15:33:32 UTC