- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:36:18 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
(I said elsewhere that I'd look into the complexity and performance issues re. adding a dynamic number of cascade criteria, but I'm still working on that, so I won't comment on that yet.) > Could adding a count of nested @scope work as an approximation that does not require dynamic sizing? > I would be happy with that as an approximation. That would be _much_ more acceptable, so +1 from me. I would also argue that it's better for authors to _not_ over-complicate the cascade criteria _even more_, and outer scopes just adding a flat `1` to a single tie-breaker sounds like an easier model to manage mentally. @mirisuzanne Once, you also believed in the benefit of keeping it simple here: > "In my mind proximity is a useful heuristic in the simple cases - and this logic [single proximity] continues to handle those cases well. Once things get more complicated, authors will likely need to think about other cascade controls: layers, specificity, etc. With a heuristic like this, I think it would be a mistake to get too clever about solving more complex scenarios in an abstract or magical way." [[1]](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8380#issuecomment-1414067778) > "I don't see any reason to have a specificity-like cascade mechanic based on 'how many scopes were used to get here'. That would over-complicate what scope is about." [[2]](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8380#issuecomment-1458758527) I still haven't seen an actual reason to change anything here, but I can live with @dshin-moz' proposal in any case. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10795#issuecomment-2405792557 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2024 18:36:19 UTC