- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:51:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think requiring authors to type `&:is(div *)` is dramatically worse than `:is(div) &`, fwiw. ^_^ It's certainly not easier to explain the transform necessary there. It's also certainly a worse interim option than `:is(div) &` in terms of "weird cruft that'll get leftover in code during the interim", which Alan wanted to avoid in the first place. And again, the only reason to avoid things like `.foo &`, which the current spec allows *and* which has zero cruft in our ideal future, is if we think that we're going to throw out the last year of discussions and start with some new approach. We don't have any reason to believe that's the case (and I'm strongly opposed to it). -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8249#issuecomment-1399298765 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 17:51:42 UTC