- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:25:45 -0400
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 6/2/11 11:16 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/11 10:36 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>>> Why? It looks clear enough (and eminently parse-able) to me to do this:
>>>
>>> foo {
>>> & bar, far, :hover {
>>> prop: val;
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>> Is it clear and parseable enough to allow:
>>
>> foo {
>> & > bar,> far, ~:hover {
>> prop: val;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> ?
>
> I would say so (it seems unambiguous)
For what it's worth, your original example _is_ ambiguous. Consider:
foo {
& bar, :hover {
}
}
Is that the same as:
foo bar, foo:hover { }
or as:
foo bar, foo :hover { }
?
> I am assuming that the purpose of the "&" is so that you don't start trying to read 'bar' as a property
Yes.
> But once you have it starting the line, I'd think you'd be into 'inner selector' mode and proceed from there. But if you disagree, then I am interested in hearing why.
See above.
-Boris
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 15:26:14 UTC