- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 15:16:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> That means it won't round-trip "structurally", like we talked about before. But maybe that's not so bad. It would, why wouldn't it? > including the "leading" declaration list in cssRules is problematic, as it requires a new use-counter and waiting many months for good data. ... I suggest that we resolve on the proposal, minus the change to cssRules for now. "Making [cssRules] a comprehensive and consistent representation of all the contents of the style rule" does makes sense to me, but it would be nice if we could consider this separately in order to deal with the most urgent part ASAP. If we're unsure about Web-compat here, then I think it's fine to leave this point as an open question until we have more data. > It makes sense, but actually we could do this separately as well? We could if we need to (and certainly we can take it as a separate resolution in the discussion), but it's part of making sure that the new CSSRule can get inserted/reordered/etc., so I think it's better to do this part as part of the package. @emilio I'm not sure I follow. The definition we're proposing for `insertRules/Declarations` does not allow for consecutive `CSSNestingDeclarations` objects in the `.cssRules` lists. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10234#issuecomment-2122869203 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2024 15:16:33 UTC