- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:34:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'm sorry, I don't understand your example there. Ignoring the obvious difference in the ordering of the selectors, the two do act identically - they're both *basically* equivalent to just concatenating the selectors. (And neither would match.) Are you thinking of a more complicated example that actually shows a difference in the nesting? > things that implicitly create a scope like @scope / :has()... `@scope` (and Nesting) both have easy ways to escape that "implicit scope" caused by relative selectors, tho - just put an `&` or `:scope` in the inner selector. In all these cases the "scoping" is just a very light convenience feature caused by relative selectors, not an actual boundary in any sense. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9422#issuecomment-1740034829 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 21:34:12 UTC