- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:43:01 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Yes, the `:is()`-like behavior *is* necessary to avoid inconsistent behavior. `&`, `&.foo`, `& .foo`, and `.foo &` should all be identical wrt specificity (well, the first will have one class less, obvs). We absolutely should not try to do anything to "fix" this in some of the cases but not others. The pseudo-element restriction is annoying, but there's already an issue tracking that (#7433). -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9492#issuecomment-1773144440 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 20 October 2023 17:43:03 UTC