- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:00:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I just want to note that `&` is not actually replaced by `:is()`, it just behaves like it. The actual definition of `&` in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting/#nest-selector > the [nesting selector](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting/#nesting-selector) represents the elements matched by the parent rule I guess this could become > the [nesting selector](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting/#nesting-selector) represents the elements <ins>or pseudo-elements</ins> matched by the parent rule I'm not convinced that the specificity needs to be changed. Treating a `&` alone different than when used in a more complex selector seems extremely hacky and a source of confusion to me. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9492#issuecomment-1769062893 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2023 18:00:32 UTC