You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Following this, it would seem that showing .parent > .scope in the nested style rule would be incorrect and redundant, since the rule would already have an implicit :scope prefix. Would it be more correct to show this in the example instead:
In this case, the selector list of the inner rule has an explicit &, thus it doesn't have the implicit :scope.
(but it ends up being the same selector anyway)
The CSS nesting spec has the following example:
which it says is equivalent to:
However, according to my reading of css-cascade-6, this seems slightly incorrect.
Following this, it would seem that showing
.parent > .scope
in the nested style rule would be incorrect and redundant, since the rule would already have an implicit:scope
prefix. Would it be more correct to show this in the example instead:where
:scope
is equal to.parent > .scope
as defined in the rule's<scope-start>
?Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly. It's sorta confusing that this is split between two different specifications.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: