- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 19:27:45 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I fear that many of the advocates of the current approach have gotten there by a long series of compromises trying to narrow down the options, which each may have made sense in isolation, but when taken in as a whole have led us to a solution where the costs outweigh the benefits. This is not the case, and speculation of this sort isn't helpful. I know exactly what the costs are in aggregate (*I laid them out in my last comment*), and believe they are more than acceptable vs the costs of using a syntax that diverges from the common usage of nesting across more than a decade of preprocessors (and possibly introduces additional levels of indentation to every usage of nesting). I know you disagree, @plinss, but if my previous post hasn't convinced you I'm not sure anything else will. I personally am not going to be convinced to go back to a mandatory prefix or additional nesting, either, and there's no middle ground between our two positions to make a compromise possible, so I suggest you go ahead and file your objection if you're going to. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1380904430 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2023 19:27:46 UTC