- From: Roman Komarov via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 17:45:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> The main downside I see is the nested potential for @layer !override.framework.!override.utilities; etc. I don't think I see issues outside the verboseness? The library/styles author would have to decide over how they would want to place and name their styles — if they're ok with the verbose naming for overriding — fine; otherwise they could always have a `default` layer, as they're free to control how they write their styles. Moreover, could potentially be alleviated a bit by choosing a shorter name like, I don't know `!top`? > (That and my more general fears about authors reaching for more power turning into a layer arms race, but that fear may be unwarranted. Managing the priority of styles is the entire goal here.) Given the power that layer gives is isolated to its parent layer, and only makes sense when thinking about unlayered styles, I don't think it will be an issue? And the verboseness of the syntax could be a slight deterrent there. Maybe we could even then name it `!above-unlayered` or something, to emphasize that you probably don't want to use these for every scenario. I think this is a case where we want to achieve a _complex_ thing, and it might be ok to not provide a simple solution. But I really feel that we need _a_ solution, and I, as an author, would be happy with almost anything :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by kizu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6323#issuecomment-1806160789 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 10 November 2023 17:45:15 UTC