Hacker News Reader

Comment by frosted-flakes | Hacker News Reader

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

lol just curious what the thought process is. Sass and postcss support that and every other css flavor with nesting I've used supports it and it seems like it'd be a pretty big deal and something that would be explicitly called out in the article if it didn't support it. So I'm just curious if you've run into an issue with that or if there's some in-the-weeds technical reason why that might not be supported

My memory was correct. I found the section in the original proposal[1] that did not allow mixing nested rules and declarations:

> When a style rule contains both declarations and nested style rules or nested conditional group rules, the declarations must come first, followed by the nested rules. Declarations occuring[sic] after a nested rule are invalid and ignored.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/WD-css-nesting-1-20210831/#mixing

Fortunately, this has been changed in the most recent proposal[2]:

> When a style rule contains both declarations and nested style rules or nested conditional group rules, all three can be arbitrarily mixed. However, the relative order of declarations vs other rules is not preserved in any way.

[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-nesting-1/#mixing

Very interesting and exactly what I was curious about! Thanks for the links

Really curious about the reasoning behind that initial quirk

Depending on the exact parsing strategy it might be genuinely required (such as if the parser switches from "property mode" to "rule mode" at some point), but in this case it was just because it's kinda confusing to do so.

We removed the restriction, but still warn against it due to readability issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com