- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:15:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> The slimmed down option 3 – with required leading & - was proposed during the call to break the standstill we were in: I know, but again, that wasn't what Lea was referring to, either here or in the call. They explicitly said they were talking about requiring a mandatory `&` *somewhere* in the selector, *separate* from whatever we do for the prop/rule disambiguation. (This sort of restriction *has* been talked about in previous discussions.) > Giving option 3 the stamp of approval would have resulted in a formal objection because we lacked data about a relaxed/infinite lookahead being viable or not. An important point that keeps being overlooked is that Peter has said they'll object to the current spec (Option 3) *after* the lookahead research, too. The only approval they've given to the current spec is as a stepping-stone impl to infinite lookahead, but very specifically *not* as an alternative if infinite lookahead is unviable. There is no future in which the current spec stands and Peter doesn't object, at least given their stated opinions over the last few meetings. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1398764796 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 18:15:23 UTC