Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-cascade-6] Do we want to defer some or all of these scope extensions to level 7? (#8628)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade-6] Do we want to defer some or all of these scope extensions to level 7?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: The combinator is deferred`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emeyer> miriam: Some tagalong features we can consider; all are useful, question is whther we shoudl be trying to cover them now or defer to next spec level<br>
&lt;emeyer> …If we don’t defer them, next on the agenda is a scope sibling feature<br>
&lt;emeyer> …This would be horizontal in the DOM<br>
&lt;emeyer> …A pretty straightforward thing to spec, we think, but it hasn’t been specced<br>
&lt;emeyer> …The other is the scoped proximity combinators<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We have a little less sense when people would use this rather than @scope<br>
&lt;emeyer> …For @scope you’re trying to target several elements in the DOM, and the at-rule does that neatly<br>
&lt;emeyer> …In a single selector, it gets more complex<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> +1 to deferring, they're all nice but none are necessary<br>
&lt;emeyer> …The real question is: defer, or no?<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: One concern with deferring is there may be feedback with current-level features that could modify<br>
&lt;emeyer> …If we’re not considering these now, we may miss something<br>
&lt;emeyer> miriam: It’s hard to know if that’s too cautious<br>
&lt;emeyer> …So far neither has caused major changes and will continue to be in our heads, but I dunno<br>
&lt;emeyer> TabAtkins: My estimate is they shouldn’t cause any problems, and should be forward-compatible<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Would it make sense to have a note about things we’ve explicitly deferred?<br>
&lt;bramus> q+<br>
&lt;emeyer> miriam: Since one is partically-specced, it could be opening another spec<br>
&lt;astearns> ack bramus<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/partically/partially/<br>
&lt;emeyer> bramus: I’m okay with deferring combinators due to complexity, but was wondering if we can have sinling scope in level 6<br>
&lt;emeyer> s/sinling/sibling/<br>
&lt;emilio> Implementation-wise they seem a bit trickier than descendant scopes fwiw<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: What use case are you concerned about with sibling proximity?<br>
&lt;emilio> Because to change the descendant relationship you need to remove from the DOM but that's not true for siblings<br>
&lt;emeyer> bramus: So authors can style things like start and end dates on a calendar and also styles things between them<br>
&lt;emeyer> miriam: Another example is to style everything between one header and the next header<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: Seems like those are use cases where you don’t need scope proximity effect, you just want the flooring effect, yes?<br>
&lt;emeyer> miriam: I think I’ve seen examples using both<br>
&lt;emeyer> …They achieve the same goal, but at different levels of explicitness and power<br>
&lt;RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/22-css-minutes.html fantasai<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: Can we resolve on deferring the combinator?<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Proposing deferring 8380 with a note that it was deffered to next level<br>
&lt;emeyer> RESOLVED: The combinator is deferred<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8628#issuecomment-1479769129 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2023 15:21:29 UTC