- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 23:29:39 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I am also interested in exploring the suggestion from @bramus about shipping a subset of option 3 with a required & to start, then gradually adding more functionality over time. That seems like a promising compromise, though it would likely make the `@supports` story much more complicated I think you may be referring to the point I made: that if we know infinite lookahead is coming, I'd rather ship a syntax with a mandatory `&`, so that it becomes optional for descendants and combinators at once. Note that I'm only proposing this for user experience, it does not solve the lookahead issue to have a mandatory `&`. Note that I only think this is a good idea if we know that infinite lookahead is possible. If not, I think Option 3 as it currently stands is a better bet. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1396228963 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 23:29:41 UTC