- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 23:19:39 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade] @scope as a nested grouping rule and CSSNestedDeclarations`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: bare declarations in a scoped rule apply to the scoped root and add no specificity.` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <khush> andruud: when a @scope rule is a nested grouping rule we allow bare declarations within its body. Now such declarations should be wrapped in a nested css rule.<br> <khush> the css nested declarations rule is generally defined to match whatever the parent selector matches<br> <khush> with same specificity behaviour<br> <khush> butt this may not make sense for at-scope since it's not how implicit selector stuff works for scope in general<br> <khush> so we should have nested css declation rule inside nested matches the scoping root with no specificity<br> <khush> astearns: this matches miriam's proposal?<br> <matthieud> s/inside nested/inside scope<br> <khush> miriam: yes. scopes don't add specificicity which matches this. bare declarations in the scope matches the scope root.<br> <khush> andruud: when it's not nested, it's not allowed. separate open issue<br> <khush> miriam: this matches previous stamenents. +1<br> <khush> astearns: from glancing at your last comment, there are other things to resolve on this?<br> <khush> miriam: they'll fall out so let's be clear.<br> <khush> one resolution was to serialize the implicit scope but that adds specificity. so we need to change that to work the same way, implicit scope is wrapped in a ware pseudo class which hides the specificity of selectors inside it<br> <khush> also allow declarations directly inside scope<br> <khush> astearns: so nested related issues<br> <khush> miriam: doing all will get consistent behaviour<br> <khush> astearns: sounds like if we're serializing the bare decls in a scope such that they are wrapped in a ware pseudo?<br> <khush> andruud: if the ware pseudo is implicitly added it should not be serialized<br> <khush> astearns: no problem then<br> <khush> astearns: any other comments?<br> <matthieud> s/ware/:where<br> <astearns> :where<br> <miriam> :where(:scope)<br> <khush> matthieud: it's not directly related to this issue but in general what's the meaning of something nested in a rule. It's just gonna have specificity of pseudo-class of 1. We need to add specificty of each layer or cascading won'y work<br> <khush> miriam: it puts the implicit & in the scoped rule. so the scoped root is a nested selector of the parent<br> <khush> andruud: this is an existing issue?<br> <khush> matthieud: resolution won't change the behaviour but wanted to bring this up.<br> <khush> astearns: so should we resolve on what we were first discussing and then go through each implication in turn?<br> <khush> miriam: not sure how well the resolution is on the issue<br> <khush> miriam: for this one, where declarations in scope should be treated as a css nested declaration?<br> <khush> andruud: the where declarations apply to the scoping root with no extra specificity<br> <khush> astearns: it's not where and bare declarations in the above<br> <khush> matthieud: do we want specifity of the start or the complete selector which could be more complext<br> <khush> miriam: scoped root doesn't add specificty, only when you use & or :scope. If you're adding a bare declaration then no specificty added<br> <khush> astearns: proposed resiltion, bare declarations in a scoped rule apply to the scoped root and add no specificty.<br> <khush> astearns: objections?<br> <khush> RESOLVED: bare declarations in a scoped rule apply to the scoped root and add no specificity.<br> <khush> astearns: other related issues?<br> <khush> miriam: clarify serialization. we can't serialize it with :scope. Won't do what we just resolved.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10431#issuecomment-2207475954 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2024 23:19:40 UTC