Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors] Is it intentional that :has(:is()) is different from :has()? (#9422)

• From: Emilio Cobos Álvarez via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
• Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:47:46 +0000
• To: public-css-archive@w3.org
• Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-1739982276-1695934064-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

Yeah, I'm ok with close no change I guess, but I think it's rather confusing that things inside `:has()` (and `@scope`) escape the scope. Not only implementation-wise it's a pain, but also it's very weird that something like:

```css
@scope #middle {
  #outer #inner {
    display: block
  }
}
```

Behaves differently from:

```css
#outer #inner {
  @scope #middle {
    display: block;
  }
}
```

You could argue that it's kind of the same with descendant combinators and such, but I find it a bit more confusing / less intuitive for things that implicitly create a scope like `@scope` / `:has()`...

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by emilio
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9422#issuecomment-1739982276 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2023 20:47:48 UTC