This is not something that Google can change unilaterally since the feature was specified by the CSS Working Group.
A better venue for this feedback may be the CSS Working Group Github (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts) . Use [css-cascade-6] in the title of the issue so it'll get to the right people. On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:40:19 PM UTC-7 nigh...@cybre.space wrote: > Hi all, I realize this is kind of late in the feedback process, but while > reading the syntax examples here I found myself pretty confused by the > meaning of the "to" keyword. Especially given that the tendency is to read > it as the English language sentence "Scope .foo to .bar", it seems to > introduce a meaning almost entirely at odds with what it's purpose is > (scope the styles TO .foo, EXCLUDING .bar rather than, e.g., "Scope .foo's > styles to .bar" or something similar) > > Reading the explainer, it sounds like the way this syntax was arrived at > was pretty path dependant (building on the previous "from: x to: y" syntax) > Has the CSSWG considered any other keyword for this proposal, for example > maybe something like > > @scope (.component) excluding (.bar) { > ... > } > > Again, sorry that this feedback is coming so late in the timeline, but > curious whether there were any other alternatives explored here. > > And definitely second the opinion on the explainer! I don't think I would > have been able to figure out the usage of the "to (...)" clause without it > and it really made it clear why it was important and how it fit into the > overall design of the feature > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-5 and...@chromium.org wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 5:54 PM slightlyoff via Chromestatus < >> admin+sl...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> LGTM3. If we have a potential `:visited` issue, we should make sure this >>> is shipped with a feature flag for the next few releases. The long term >>> solution for `:visited` is to make it less brittle (a.k.a. "directed >>> visitedness") as we're going to keep adding new combinators that invalidate >>> the assumptions of heuristic approaches. >>> >> >> Ack, I filed a reminder >> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1452154> to >> ensure that we have a feature flag. >> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0000000000008609c705fd8c257a%40google.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0000000000008609c705fd8c257a%40google.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/42d56f17-8b1a-4653-9c18-5bdb7e8d594bn%40chromium.org.
