- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:23:57 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
My general sense here is that this is proposing something putting something that is very preprocessor-ish and not very CSS-ish directly into CSS. But it's been a longstanding preprocessor feature, so people are accustomed to it being preprocessor-ish. On the flip side, doing it the preprocessor-ish way means that (using `:is()`) developers can have both options, if they want. However, when choosing between the options, the thing that feels to me like a more natural fit for CSS is the one with the weird syntax. However, I agree with @sesse that the lack of an efficient in memory representation for the selectors that would result from the change proposed here would be a major problem. (We don't know for sure that it's not possible to do -- but we don't yet have a demonstration that it is possible to do -- and to do in a way that isn't unacceptably complex.) I would be extremely uncomfortable resolving to do this without an explanation of how engines are expected to implement it in a way that is efficient in both time and memory, and agreement from implementors across multiple engines that such an approach would work. I think we should avoid adding more performance cliffs into CSS where using simple-looking features can cause extremely poor performance (in speed or memory use). -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8310#issuecomment-1387156986 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 14:23:59 UTC