- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:16:36 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade] [css-nesting] Figure out whether we're fine with "shifting up" bare declarations after rules`.
<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
<astearns> ack bramus<br>
<Frances> Tab: Suggest to wait a little longer for use counters<br>
<astearns> ack lea<br>
<Frances> Lea: Use counters trade off in waiting, we might not be able to make the change. CSS nesting is established, how could people use it, have anecdotal data. To continue having shifting data, would like to fix it.<br>
<Frances> Tab: Need to see if it is possible to fix it, will not change unless we can see that it is compatible, in favor.<br>
<Frances> Lea: Don't need to wait for the use counters.<br>
<Frances> Alan: Consensus that it is the right thing if possible.<br>
<lea> s/Don't need to wait for the use counters./Don't need to wait for the use counters to decide whether it's worth doing, only to determine whether it *can* be done./<br>
<Frances> Alan: Would it be possible to make the change, what else do we have to do to see if it will work correctly. Is there a separate issue for SSN?<br>
<lea> q+<br>
<Frances> Tab: A naked ampersand style rule could be possible.<br>
<TabAtkins> The proposal in the issue is to reintroduce @nest without any arguments, which just represents the same elements as the parent. This also avoids problems that would come from a naked `& {...}` rule. Details are in the issue.<br>
<Frances> Matthieu: Would like if we could find the solution in parrallel.<br>
<astearns> ack lea<br>
<Frances> Lea: The author intent is clear, would not like to have another nesting syntax, bad from ui perspective.<br>
<TabAtkins> (We already do this "hack" in MQs/etc, fwiw.)<br>
<Frances> Tab: CSSOM would reflect after the first rule showed up as @nest rules. Could get grouped up and lose their ordering.<br>
<dbaron> s/Could get/Otherwise they would get/<br>
<dbaron> s/reflect/reflect declarations/<br>
<lea> +1 The design component of this does not need use counters and I'm not sure we have consensus on the design we want<br>
<Frances> Alan: It could be useful to continue to work and separate CSSOM into a separate issue.<br>
<Frances> Tab: We could create a separate CSSOM issue.<br>
<Frances> Alan: We can work through it as soon as we get compat data back.<br>
<oriol> Tab's proposal was on another issue, https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9492#issuecomment-1779739434<br>
</details>
--
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8738#issuecomment-1969468715 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2024 17:16:37 UTC