Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

PSA: CSS Nesting Still Shipping in M112 I've been experimenting with parser restarts in Blink lately, which would allow nested selectors that start with tag names. I've shared my results with the CSSWG (Issue 7961, comment

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Will authors actually need to feature detect this? I mean, feature detection won’t make a difference to visitors as it will have the same net outcome to them: the nested styles will not be applied in browsers that don’t support nesting. I can imagine authors using nesting in inline styles, and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

> > If they want, authors can work around this mistake by also testing for a feature that ships in any release after M110. A good candidate would be cos(), which ships in M111: `@supports selector(&) and (scale: cos(90deg)) { … }`. That way M109 and M110 are excluded. > This only works if web

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

> If they want, authors can work around this mistake by also testing for a feature that ships in any release after M110. A good candidate would be cos(), which ships in M111: `@supports selector(&) and (scale: cos(90deg)) { … }`. That way M109 and M110 are excluded. This only works if web

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 23:59, Bramus Van Damme wrote: > OTOH: Will authors actually need to feature detect this? I mean, feature > detection won’t make a difference to visitors as it will have the same net > outcome to them: the nested styles will not be applied in browsers that > don’t support

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

*(Hmm, looks like something went wrong with posting my previous message through the web UI. For clarity, I’m re-sending the relevant part.)* If they want, authors can work around this mistake by also testing for a feature that ships in any release after M110. A good candidate would be cos(),

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 3:20:34 PM UTC+1 obr...@igalia.com wrote: This is another reason to delay the shipment: reducing the number of users in 109 and 110 will make the check somewhat more reliable. If they want, authors can work around this mistake by also testing for a feature that

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

This is another reason to delay the shipment: reducing the number of users in 109 and 110 will make the check somewhat more reliable. El dia dimecres, 8 de febrer de 2023 a les 17:32:50 UTC+1, Philip Jägenstedt va escriure: > Feature detection will be possible using `@supports selector(&)`.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Feature detection will be possible using `@supports selector(&)`. Due to a bug there was a false positive with the flag turned off, but that's been fixed in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1414012 today and a backport to 111 has been requested. The false positive will remain

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

I believe, one major issue for the adoption of nesting and which should block shipping it is feature detection. There needs to be a clear way for authors to detect whether the browser supports nesting rules, i.e. provide them with a way to transition to nesting. Without feature detection,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 12:27:08AM -0800, obr...@igalia.com wrote: > For example, https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5745 resolved to > accept the selector & everywhere, defaulting it to :scope. But from a quick > test it seems that querySelector and querySelectorAll just return null or

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Sorry for the delay, I will try to answer the various points raised: > Thanks for raising that there may be some spec changes that don't match the current implementation. Can you list which issues you think need to be resolved? There are already 3 listed upthread, and I agree that anything

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

+1 to Rick's notes about "*why the hurry*"; there is a high cost to not doing the good we can do in a timely way, and shipping important features is how we make the world better -- and also worse, which is why we hold the train in many cases, but only for a limited time. Transpilers are a tax, not

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Yes thanks for weighing in Oriol, I appreciate it - especially in cases like this when reasonable and well-meaning people may disagree strongly on the best course of action. I agree that we should do our reasonable best to identify and resolve such outstanding issues to minimize the risk of having

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Hi Oriol, Thanks for raising that there may be some spec changes that don't match the current implementation. Can you list which issues you think need to be resolved? There are already 3 listed upthread, and I agree that anything that has

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

I don't see the danger of a priority of constituencies inversion. Authors can use preprocessors, just like they have been using for several years, so I don't get where the hurry comes from. In fact, I would argue that hurrying to ship a future without having discussed the details just tends to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

LGTM4, with the same criteria! On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:23 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM3 with same conditions outlined by Rick and Philip. > > On 1/25/23 12:30 PM, Rick Byers wrote: > > We discussed this in the API owner meeting today (Philip, Rego, Daniel, > Chris, Yoav, Mike Taylor and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

LGTM3 with same conditions outlined by Rick and Philip. On 1/25/23 12:30 PM, Rick Byers wrote: We discussed this in the API owner meeting today (Philip, Rego, Daniel, Chris, Yoav, Mike Taylor and myself). We appreciate that there's not yet full consensus on the API syntax, but also that we've

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

We discussed this in the API owner meeting today (Philip, Rego, Daniel, Chris, Yoav, Mike Taylor and myself). We appreciate that there's not yet full consensus on the API syntax, but also that we've been in this state for several months and we've heard pretty clearly from web developers that as a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

LGTM1 I had a chat with Steinar today to answer my questions. Out of the open issues, the important ones to resolve before shipping are: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7850 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7971 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7972 Those don't

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Adding to Philip questions, there seems to be quite a lot of ongoing discussions around this topic on the CSSWG, for example today there's a special meeting only for CSS Nesting topics: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2023Jan/0011.html What's their impact on the current

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Steinar H. Gunderson' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:37:21AM -0500, Mike Taylor wrote: > > I spent quite a lot of time trying to understand the issues around > nesting > > syntax. It looks like the CSSWG resolved to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:37:21AM -0500, Mike Taylor wrote: > I spent quite a lot of time trying to understand the issues around nesting > syntax. It looks like the CSSWG resolved to adopt "Option 3", with > representatives from all 3 engines voting in favor - and the WebKit blog > survey also

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

I think that we should ship this. It's a high profile and in-demand new feature , so I have a few questions and comments first. Taking a look at the open spec issues ( https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/labels/css-nesting-1)

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 5:37 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > Hi Steiner, > > I spent quite a lot of time trying to understand the issues around > nesting syntax. It looks like the CSSWG resolved to adopt "Option 3", > with representatives from all 3 engines voting in favor - and the WebKit > blog survey

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Hi Steiner, I spent quite a lot of time trying to understand the issues around nesting syntax. It looks like the CSSWG resolved to adopt "Option 3", with representatives from all 3 engines voting in favor - and the WebKit blog survey also resulted in "Option 3" as the top choice. Do we know

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

Contact emails: se...@chromium.org, futh...@chromium.org Explainer: None Specification: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting Summary: Add the ability to nest CSS style rules inside other style rules, combining selectors from the outer with the inner rule for increasing modularity and