Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-syntax][css-nesting] Design of `@nest` rule (#10234)

> > 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.

Yeah, sure. `{}` was a response to @romainmenke's world where authors might actually want to write it themselves. If `@nest{}` basically does nothing (except add structure), perhaps `{}` is a better way to represent it (and more in line with other languages).

> Because unless I’m missing something, I don't see how both statements can be true (it is both impactful and not impactful).

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not always easy to _prove_ that CSSOM changes won't break sites, even if you strongly believe it won't.

---

But OK, if shipping `@nest` ASAP is indeed what everyone wants here, I can try. I'll need positions from Apple and Mozilla.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by andruud
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10234#issuecomment-2071626068 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2024 07:34:56 UTC