- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:58:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I'm strongly against a "mandatory &" - nothing is helped by requiring an & _somewhere_. (That is, `div > &` satisfies this but is still problematic in such a world, while `> div` has no problems but is mysteriously disallowed by such a restriction.) I don't understand where this suggestion is coming from or in what way it would help us. Ok, let me explain a bit more. Being able to skip `&` for selectors that don't start with an ident, is a tradeoff: we win portability (better/copy paste between nesting and `@scope`) and efficiency (faster to type and arguably faster to read) but "you just have to start every nested rule with a `&`" has far better learnability. Unlike some of the opponents of Option 3, I don't think the rule is incomprehensible to authors (heck, you may recall that Option 3 was originally called "Lea's proposal" 😁), but "every rule has to start with `&` is certainly **easier**. Note that `div &` can just be rewritten as `&:is(div *)`, so expressive power is the same for most (all?) cases. So I'm tending to somewhat agree with @plinss and @astearns here: if we can ship the better syntax once the unbounded lookahead investigations have finished, I'd be fine shipping a more restricted, easier to explain, form now. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1399256564 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2023 13:58:09 UTC