[css-nesting] Treating nesting as syntactic sugar?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 4.9k
- Forks
- 816
- Avg merge
- 2d 18h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 24
Description
Disclaimer, I'm not sure I'm actually in favor of this, but I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.
During the transition period until authors can reliaibly just serve stylesheets containing nesting, authors will either need to transpile their stylesheets into non-nested form, differentially serve nested and non-nested versions, or somehow use a polyfill to convert nested stylesheets into non-nested form for older browsers.
Each of these cases complicates any code that uses the CSSOM to interact with the stylesheet. What if we treated nesting as parse-time syntactic sugar and always generated the CSSOM in the un-nested form?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
This is an open-ended discussion about CSS nesting and whether CSSOM should expose an un-nested form. Start by reviewing the CSS nesting and CSSOM context described in the issue; no file, test, entry point, or concrete completion criterion is provided.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- css
- Domain
- frontend
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100