- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:47:54 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Do we need the @nest part of the rule? Can we use naked {}? Looking at css-syntax, I don't immediately see why not.
We could, it would just be a new syntax construct to define. Relying on the existing at-rule syntax just makes for a slightly simpler model. And since we don't anticipate authors actually writing this themselves, I don't think the length of the name actually matter in any meaningful way.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10234#issuecomment-2070926009 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 22 April 2024 20:47:55 UTC