- From: Bramus via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:34:37 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Isn’t the problem that `:is()` reads as the word _“is”_ in English, which is causing confusion here?
If you read it as _“is”_, the following (from the IRC log) indeed is confusing: `.foo:is(.bar, ::before, ::after) == .foo.bar, .foo::before, .foo::after` … there’s no way that a `.foo` _“is”_ also a `::before`.
But if you replace `:is()` with something like `:concat()`, it becomes more clear what is happening: `.foo:concat(.bar, ::before, ::after) == .foo.bar, .foo::before, .foo::after` … the pieces get glued together and that’s it.
---
Also, I tried to decipher the chat log but am not sure what exactly we resolved on for nesting. Does `.foo { &::before { &:hover {} } }` result in _hovering the `::before` of `.foo`_ or does it result _the `::before` when hovering `.foo`_? I think we resolved on the former (i.e. `.foo::before:hover`)?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by bramus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9702#issuecomment-3532084978 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 14 November 2025 10:34:38 UTC