- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 23:22:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'd like to revisit this. I'm fine if we *do* end up keeping the resolution, but from the minutes it doesn't look like it was argued very well. The only real comment aside from dbaron's introduction was referring to a comment about the current state of the grammar, and didn't reference *my* response to that comment.
My point is that `#host::part(p):is(:hover, :active)` is allowed and perfectly fine, so `:hover, :active { #host::part(p)& {...}}` is also meaningful and potentially useful. Similarly, `#host::part(p):is(div)` is *allowed* (but doesn't match anything; the contextual restriction against type selectors after a pseudo-element causes the `:is()` to consider its argument invalid), so `div { #host::part(p)& {...}}` is at least well-defined, if not *useful*.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10788#issuecomment-2389969859 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2024 23:22:33 UTC