- From: Peter Linss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 04:29:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> If it’s possible to avoid the :is(div) & form entirely, I think that’s a win for authors. I have a hard time imagining how that would be a win. Even if :is(div) & is cumbersome, it is better than not being able to express that at all, by requiring the selector to begin with a &. With lookahead that would simply be `div &`, which is the win we're talking about. What @astearns is describing is a proposal where even `:is(div) &` wouldn't be valid in V1, only selectors that begin with a `&` (and have no other `&` anywhere). Once we know if lookahead is viable or not, we either make `div &` valid (and any other selector without a `&`, leading or not) or `:is(div) &` depending on the outcome. -- GitHub Notification of comment by plinss Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1397910504 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 20 January 2023 04:29:35 UTC