Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-cascade-6] Clarify circular dependency (In wording) in finding scoping limits. (#10295)

I inlined the desired half of the definition instead. 

Looking over it with fresh eyes, it seemed that "in scope" was probably also the wrong definition *anyway*, since it includes the scoping root, and I don't think we want scoping limits to be able to match the scoping root itself? That would be easy to hit if you're trying to style a nestable component with `@scope (.widget) to (.widget)`, and would produce a scope with a single element in it, which doesn't seem particularly useful. In the rare case you actually *do* just want one element like that, just using `@scope (.foo) { :scope {...}}` works just fine, with no need for a limit.

So as part of inlining it, I also changed "inclusive descendant of the scoping root" to just "descendant of the scoping root".

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/10295#issuecomment-4337982937 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2026 18:17:32 UTC