- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 19:22:19 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 6/3/11 9:38 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 6/3/11 9:35 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>>>
>>> For a moment I felt exactly the same, but I think there are some cases
>>> where the "&input" construct could make sense
>>
>> Sure. I just no longer understand what the proposed processing model is,
>> past "do something that's in Tab's head".
>
> In particular, should this work?
>
> .foo {
> body > & { color: green; }
> #bar & .baz { color: blue; }
> }
>
> ? If not, why not?
We'd love that to work, but it unfortunately allows the ambiguity
where a selector can look like a property:
.foo {
bar:hover a a a a a a a a a a a a a a & { color: green; }
}
This looks like a property named "bar" with a value of "hover a a
a..." up until the point we see the {.
This was listed as a concern with previous incarnations of the idea.
If it's no longer a problem, then let's relax the restriction and rock
out, because it's totally useful to be able to do that.
Another option is to use a more explicit indicator at the start, like:
.foo {
@nest {
body > & { color: green; }
#bar & .baz { color: blue; }
}
}
This is a bit more verbose, however, and we wanted to avoid verbosity.
I'm not violently opposed to this, though.
~TJ
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2011 02:23:09 UTC