- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:31:03 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@Loirooriol > I'm not convinced that the specificity needs to be changed. I don’t think anybody is arguing for that — probably way too late due to web compat, and also unclear *how* it could be changed. There’s a reason `:is()` flattens specificity. @andruud > > So a quick fix to the pressing issues could be to simply special case &. > > Honest question: what's the pressing issue? Pseudo-elements don't currently work, but it seems fine to have a restriction that we can lift later? #8738 is the pressing issue, not pseudo-elements. See [resolution from yesterday](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8738#issuecomment-1768977689). > > Treating a & alone different than when used in a more complex selector seems extremely hacky and a source of confusion to me. > > +1 Maybe special casing `&` is hacky, but not wrapping hierarchies of simple selectors seems like a direct improvement, akin to e.g. not using parens when parens are not needed when generating expressions. `:is()` are basically the parens of CSS selectors. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9492#issuecomment-1771113104 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2023 14:31:05 UTC