Fix nesting #41213
Fix nesting #41213
Conversation
This one is the only one that mixes relative selectors with non-relative ones. Probably missed by #41213
| testNestedSelector(".foo, .foo &", {expected:"& .foo, .foo &"}); | ||
|
|
||
| // implicit relative (and not) | ||
| testNestedSelector(".foo"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tabatkins Why do we not expect & .foo here? I see nothing in the recent edit that does anything special for relative selectors with a descendant combinator? https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting-1/#cssom
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@andruud I'm confused, my understanding is that these are not really relative selectors.
I guess they do match the <relative-selector> grammar without a combinator, tho... But you can't really serialize & unconditionally for all those, because then .foo & would become & .foo &, which is not really equivalent / what you want, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@emilio: .foo is a relative selector, but .foo & is not a relative selector, see the first two bullet points here: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting-1/#syntax
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I see. Well both are relative selectors per syntax, and none have an extra combinator, but yeah, you're right.
I don't think we want to serialize the implied combinator, since not having it doesn't make the selector invalid in any other context (unlike for relative selectors that actually start with a combinator), but I wouldn't mind either way I guess, if you have a strong reason to prefer serializing the & there...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Serializing it seems more consistent, so I'd prefer that, but I can live with anything as long as WPTs agree with the spec. :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, given no response from @tabatkins: since the spec describes the behavior, the call notes doesn't say otherwise, and @emilio says he can live with it, then I think we'll just change the WPT to expect that relative .foo is serialized as & .foo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's slightly unfortunate, fwiw, but I can live with it yeah
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh sorry for missing this comment!
I don't have much of an opinion on which way we go. You're right that, per a strict reading, the inner selector of .foo { .bar {...}} is a relative selector - nested style rules use <relative-selector-list> for their grammar, implying that their selectors are all "relative selectors", and only exempt one case from that interpretation (when the selector contains an explicit &). Then the CSSOM section does say that you must absolutize all relative selectors, inserting the implied &.
We added that serialization requirement to make sure that the selectors were valid when transferred to other contexts, and that reasoning doesn't have anything to say about a selector like ".foo" - both ".foo" and "& .foo" would be valid when moved around (and approximately equal in behavior, except that the latter can't select the root element).
Whether we fix this by adjusting the WPT, or by fixing the spec to only insert the & when it's needed to prevent the selector from starting with a combinator (and thus being invalid in non-nested contexts), I don't care too much.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor preference for changing the spec, but can live with either really.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've changed the WPT to follow the spec here #42560 if we want to go in this direction
The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests#41213 (comment)
The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests#41213 (comment)
The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests#41213 (comment)
The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) #41213 (comment) Co-authored-by: Matthieu Dubet <mdubet@apple.com>
…selector with &, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [CSS Nesting] Always serialize relative selector with & (#42560) The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests/wpt#41213 (comment) Co-authored-by: Matthieu Dubet <mdubet@apple.com> -- wpt-commits: 2e87edd0f508a08d823d4f3992ea41b0a2ef5611 wpt-pr: 42560
…selector with &, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [CSS Nesting] Always serialize relative selector with & (#42560) The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests/wpt#41213 (comment) Co-authored-by: Matthieu Dubet <mdubet@apple.com> -- wpt-commits: 2e87edd0f508a08d823d4f3992ea41b0a2ef5611 wpt-pr: 42560
…selector with &, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [CSS Nesting] Always serialize relative selector with & (#42560) The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests/wpt#41213 (comment) Co-authored-by: Matthieu Dubet <mdubet@apple.com> -- wpt-commits: 2e87edd0f508a08d823d4f3992ea41b0a2ef5611 wpt-pr: 42560
…selector with &, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [CSS Nesting] Always serialize relative selector with & (#42560) The current spec mandates to always serialize the implicit &, even when it's not necessary (such as .foo) web-platform-tests/wpt#41213 (comment) Co-authored-by: Matthieu Dubet <mdubet@apple.com> -- wpt-commits: 2e87edd0f508a08d823d4f3992ea41b0a2ef5611 wpt-pr: 42560
* Carry over fixes from web-platform-tests#41050 * Fix how relative and non-relative selectors serialize to be per spec. * Add another test for multi-ampersand. * Make the simple selector ordering tests not overlap with other tests in the file.
Fixes some bugs uncovered in #41172 comments.