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

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[selectors] Is it intentional that :has(:is()) is different from :has()?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: No change to :has() behavior`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;Frances> Emilio: Feels weird to make :has() to escape the scope of the subject, fine with no change, slow path in every engine if wrong.<br>
&lt;Frances> Alan: Is there something we can put in the specification to make it more clear?<br>
&lt;Frances> Emilio: Clarifying is good<br>
&lt;Frances> Tab: Behavior is what you get when combining two features. If something that can be added, put in the spec.<br>
&lt;Frances> Alan: Any other comments?<br>
&lt;Frances> PROPOSAL: No change to :has() behavior<br>
&lt;Frances> Alan: Any objections?<br>
&lt;Frances> RESOLVED: No change to :has() behavior<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9422#issuecomment-1896261226 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2024 17:21:49 UTC