Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-nesting] Problem with mixing properties and selectors (#8249)

> And doesn't require prefixes in the majority of cases.

[citation needed] Do you have any data to back this claim up? And it is a 90/10 majority or more like a 51/49 majority?

We do have data that shows slightly more that half the authors will simply add prefixes anyway. And for the other half allowing them to omit prefixes 50% of the time is only serving 25% of the use cases.

IMO a solution that only delivers to 25% of the use cases and has real costs to both learnability and the evolution of the language as a whole is a bad tradeoff. And even if your majority of cases is 99%, it's still not a solution for 50% of the authors.

Also, my personal prediction (based on experience) is that authors who say now that they will omit prefixes where they can will grow frustrated with the errors they encounter from forgetting them where they are needed and will shift over time into the "always prefix" camp.

> The current spec is compatible with relaxing the lookahead requirement in the future

Agreed, however if it turns out we can't relax lookahead (at least for a significant amount of time), we're stuck with a solution that adds constraints to the evolution to the language.

The other solutions are also compatible with relaxed lookahead. Having multiple was to express nesting isn't harmful and some authors may simply prefer the more explicit alternatives due to clarity. Carrying the legacy syntax for a time isn't that costly.

> Other people are, both inside and outside of Google, and I feel confident that we'll get those explorations and see what the results are.

Good to hear (and this is the first time I'm hearing it). So given the fact that there's a real cost to pay to for one of the solutions, doesn't it make sense to get this data before making a binding decision and shipping code? Particularly if that data may allow us to resolve *all* the issues and deliver a solution that makes everyone happy and covers 100% of the use cases?

I also need to point out that the push for the syntax decision isn't being phrased as "We're really going to try to relax lookahead and just deliver the SASS syntax, but that's going to take time, and we want to ship an interim solution in the meanwhile". If that were the case, it changes the dynamics of the equation. Because frankly, I've been waiting 25 years for nesting, and if it means I have to wait another 6 months for a real chance to get a good implementation, I'd rather wait. If we know for a fact that the better way of doing can't be done at all, or maybe not for another decade or so, then the push for delivering *something* makes more sense.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by plinss
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1382256731 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 13 January 2023 19:01:35 UTC