- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 20:04:08 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I know that @bramus has also looked into this some, and might be able to comment in more detail – but I think he also came down on the side of weak proximity? I'm frustrated with the argument that we should sit on this for an indefinite length of time, waiting for some undefined amount of author feedback, once layers have reached some unspecified usage. There is a clear and growing consensus around weak scope, and there have been zero-counter examples where a stronger scope would be better for authors. The argument is that `@layer` can be used when strong proximity has unwanted effects, but the same is true in reverse. Layers will always provide the escape-hatch, whichever way we go. But so far we haven't even seen examples where the 'proximity' heuristic _should_ override the 'specificity' heuristic in practice – only examples of [un-intentional specificity conflicts](https://css.oddbird.net/scope/cascade/#fantasais-example) that would need to be resolved either way. I've looked into it. I've asked others to look into it. There's a prototype available, for people to experiment. And we've consistently come to the same conclusions. But I'm not sure how to prove we've 'done enough' here. Can we either get a counter-example to discuss, or resolve on the direction that has vastly more support, so that this feature can move forward? I don't believe this issue is worth holding up the entire spec of a long-requested feature, when all the signals are pointing the same direction. -- GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6790#issuecomment-1407017151 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 27 January 2023 20:04:10 UTC