- From: Daniel Upstone via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:06:54 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
If it remains with an implicit `:is()`, and there's no way to achieve the alternative within nesting, then it doesn't support what is probably the larger use case for nesting (even if it is the less powerful one). It would mean nesting will be used less, this spec will be less useful, and it will require an alternative solution is created to fill that gap before it sees widespread use. Changing it will allow both options to work, be more expressive, and easier to read naturally (for the simple fact `:is()` usage will be explicit). It will delay rollout, which would be a benefit in this scenario, as it means we won't end up with an afterthought of a solution tacked on later, that would likely add further confusion on what already will exist (authors are still playing catch-up on understanding `:is()` as it is). In both cases, we can live without nesting indefinitely, by using more verbose selectors and preprocessors, so there should be no impetus to push this forward in a state that doesn't fulfil what developers need from it. Clearly it's going to scupper current progress on implementation work, and require some new thinking on how to implement without excessive resource consumption, but this is something that will have to be achieved (as per `:has()`) sooner or later, and I firmly believe delaying things and changing this now will be healthier for CSS moving forward. -- GitHub Notification of comment by zealvurte Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8310#issuecomment-1387044887 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2023 13:06:56 UTC