- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:38:36 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@andruud Can you clarify why the other scope notations don't have this issue? Is it just a clearer order of operations - matching scope root/boundary elements, and then resolving each selector in relation to those defined scopes?
I think it's likely we'd want to go with the more clear syntax if they have the same meaning, but just as a way of understanding the issue – does it help to parse `a b >> c >> d` as sugar for `@scope (a b) { @scope (c) { d { ... }}}`, and what all would that impact?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8380#issuecomment-1410958683 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2023 19:38:38 UTC