[css-syntax][css-nesting] Design of @nest rule

[LeaVerou]

Opening this as requested by @astearns

In #8738 we resolved to stop hoisting interleaved declarations and introduce an @nest rule that means "exactly the same thing as the parent" instead of wrapping in :is(), which is how interleaved declarations will be represented in the CSS OM. Since we were not able to get consensus on the specifics, but we had consensus that any solution along these lines is better than the status quo, we agreed that Tab would spec whatever (commit here), and we'd discuss the details later, since fixing the specifics is more web compatible than changing the current behavior after even longer.

Note

An interleaved declaration is a declaration that comes after one or more nested rules.

The issues around which we could not reach consensus were:

1. If authors have no reason to write @nest and it’s only introduced to represent interleaved declarations and rules, should they even be able to?
2. If @nest rules are magically added around interleaved declarations should they also be removed during serialization?
   1. If they are removed during serialization, does this happen always, or only when part of a larger rule (e.g. as part of .cssText)?
3. Do we even need a new @nest rule? What if we simply use the existing CSSStyleDeclaration object to represent interleaved rules? (proposed by @mdubet)
4. How does setProperty() work if we go with one of the designs that involve more magic?
5. What happens when a rule is removed and thus two sets of interleaved declarations become adjacent?
   1. Similar issue not brought up in the call: what about the case when these rules are first? Should they be merged with rule.style?

These are not orthogonal decisions: it seems clear that if @nest serializes to include an actual @nest {} rule, that @nest rule needs to also be valid author code. So essentially there are three possible designs:

1. Magic-minimizing @nest (proposed by @tabatkins, supported by @emilio @andruud @Loirooriol): The rule is automatically added around interleaved declarations, but there is no more magic besides that.
2. Author-exposure minimizing @nest (proposed by @LeaVerou, supported by @fantasai @astearns): The rule becomes a CSS OM detail, with no corresponding CSS syntax, and is removed on serialization (regardless of how serialization happens).
3. No @nest, just CSSStyleDeclaration in the CSSOM (proposed by @mdubet, supported by @LeaVerou @fantasai).
   • Criticism: That means .cssRules will also return non-rules? Would .insertRule() also accept CSSStyleDeclaration?

For 2 and 3, there are also design variations based on the answer to 4 and 5 above.

My position:

• As a design principle, I don't think CSS should have author-facing syntax that provides no benefit to authors. Either we should come up with actual use cases for @nest or make it an internal detail. That said, there could conceivably be use cases for it. E.g. one of the problems with IACVT is that fallbacks are thrown away by the time the declaration becomes invalid. What if this was a way to preserve fallbacks?
• Despite proposing 2, I actually now support 3 as I realized this version of @nest is functionally equivalent to CSSStyleDeclaration and we should not be introducing new interfaces with philosophical purity being the only motivation (i.e. "but otherwise .cssRules would be returning a non-rule?!?")
• Some voices are arguing for less magic as a goal in itself. I don't think avoiding magic at all costs should be a goal; the right magic can make a huge usability difference (at the cost of implementation complexity). It’s the wrong kind of magic that becomes problematic: magic that rarely predicts user intent well, and especially when they cannot opt-out of it. Neither seems to be the case here, at least if we design this well.
• I think authors should be able to interact with the CSS OM predictably without having to care whether there are interleaved declarations or not. This means that setProperty() on the base rule should just work, without them having to do tree walking to find the last nested rule. Like, setProperty() is an incredibly common operation, and an API where calls to setProperty() have no effect are exactly the kind of dreadful APIs that make utility libraries proliferate.
• I strongly disagree with Tab that reading and modifying the CSS OM only affects about a hundred developers in the entire world (!). Reading and modifying the CSS OM is at the core of a ton of very widespread libraries (e.g. jQuery, D3, etc). Even if most authors do not use it directly, I assure you almost every developer reads and modifies the CSS OM regularly, it's just done through several layers of abstractions.

So I would propose a design that would minimize author exposure to all of this, and would just try to do what's reasonable when reading and modifying the CSS OM:

• .cssRules would contain CSSStyleDeclaration objects with interleaved declarations
• insertRule() would accept CSSStyleDeclaration objects
• No nonsensical or redundant structures:
  • Adjacent CSSStyleDeclaration objects would be merged.
  • A CSSStyleDeclaration object cannot be at the start of cssRules. Inserting one should simply merge the declarations with rule.style.

Should rule.style be magic?

One thing I'm ambivalent about is whether rule.style should be magic too.
This would mean:

• rule.style returns the union of all interleaved declarations (we can introduce another property to only get the non-interleaved ones)
• rule.style.setProperty() (and accessors) adds to the last interleaved CSSStyleDeclaration (if any are present). The third argument is turned into a dictionary with a priority property and another property (name TBD) to reverse this behavior and actually add it to the first block of declarations.

Pros & Cons:

• 👍🏼 Max compatibility with existing code
• 👍🏼 Fewer footguns for authors (minimize bugs if authors forget to handle the case of interleaved declarations)
• 👍🏼 More sensible API for when inline styles also support nesting.
• 👀 Would this work or would it end up not predicting author intent well? What cases am I missing?

If we decide to avoid magic here, we can make the API more palatable by:

• Introducing a new rule property that returns a CSSStyleDeclaration for the union of rule.style and interleaved declarations
• Introducing a rule.setProperty() method that would add the property at the end of the last interleaved declaration. rule.style.setProperty() would continue to do what it currently does. Same for removeProperty(), getPropertyValue() etc.

[romainmenke]

Thank you @LeaVerou.

As a design principle, I don't think CSS should have author-facing syntax that provides no benefit to authors. Either we should come up with actual use cases for @nest

I actually want the @nest rule but as a more generic organizational tool.

In JavaScript it is possible to write blocks without any condition. I use this very frequently to group bits of code in a larger section.

This new at-rule could serve a similar purpose. Most authors will never use it but they could to organise and structure their code.

Today we use either multiple rules with the same selector, or comments when we want to group lists of declarations. Neither is really good.

This is our list of custom props when we start a new project :

:root {
	/* #region Colors */
	--color-foreground: rgb(0 0 0);
	--color-background: rgb(255 255 255);
	--color-grey-40: rgb(108 112 108);
	--color-warning: rgb(242 149 0);
	--color-error: rgb(207 0 0);
	/* #endregion Colors */

	/* #region Typography */
	--font-sans: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
	--font-serif: "Georgia", serif;
	/* #endregion Typography */

	/* #region Spacers */
	--space-1--px: 1px;
	--space-1--rem: 0.0625rem;
	--space-8--px: 8px;
	--space-8--rem: 0.5rem;
	--space-16--px: 16px;
	--space-16--rem: 1rem;
	--space-32--px: 32px;
	--space-32--rem: 2rem;
	--space-48--px: 48px;
	--space-48--rem: 3rem;
	/* #endregion Spacers */
}

We need to add comments before and after each group so that we can have folding regions in code editors.

@tabatkins has also stated that they aren't attached to the name of this at-rule. Something that isn't tied to nesting would be nice.

---

If on the other hand, this can all be implementation details, then I prefer that.
I however fear that we can only kick this bucket further down the road and that some API will surface the warts.

[andruud]

In JavaScript it is possible to write blocks without any condition. I use this very frequently to group bits of code in a larger section.

@tabatkins has also stated that they aren't attached to the name of this at-rule. Something that isn't tied to nesting would be nice.

Do we need the @nest part of the rule? Can we use naked {}? Looking at css-syntax, I don't immediately see why not. In other words:

:root {
  /* #region Colors */
  {
    --color-foreground: rgb(0 0 0);
    --color-background: rgb(255 255 255);
    --color-grey-40: rgb(108 112 108);
    --color-warning: rgb(242 149 0);
    --color-error: rgb(207 0 0);
  }

  /* ... etc ... */
}

fixing the specifics is more web compatible than changing the current behavior after even longer.

To be clear, this issue blocks actually carrying out #8738. The more we mess around with the details here, the higher the risk that no change will happen at all.

[LeaVerou]

To be clear, this issue blocks actually carrying out #8738. The more we mess around with the details here, the higher the risk that no change will happen at all.

That was not the resolution at all. Please implement the @nest rule as currently specced by @tabatkins. It is far, far easier to change the details of that than to change the current behavior of nesting later. That's the whole point of the resolution we made on Wednesday!

[andruud]

@LeaVerou Oh. I thought the point of the resolution was to focus the discussion and hopefully converge on something.

Unfortunately I can't make a move on @nest until this issue is resolved. I will likely not be able to ship a breaking change with the intent to break it again later, especially when there's no consensus on what the follow-up change would be.

It is far, far easier to change the details of that than to change the current behavior of nesting later.

The specific changes we're discussing here can not necessarily be made later at all. It is sometimes very hard to understand the risk of changing CSSOM APIs.

[Loirooriol]

@andruud It's not with the "intent to break it again later". It's with the intent to keep @nest as a better option than the "shifting up", but leaving the door open to explore other possibilities.

The specific changes we're discussing here can not necessarily be made later at all.

If later on we prefer to switch to something else but it's not compatible, then so be it, we can stay with @nest.

The point is that there was consensus that @nest is better than "shifting up". Exploring other possible approaches shouldn't block @nest, since delaying it will just make it not compatible.

[tabatkins]

As I said in my final comment in 8738, when considering any new feature, or additional complexity in an existing feature, it's worth paying attention to both the size of the affected audience and the size of the benefit that audience will receive.

The existence of an @nest rule is visible solely to authors who are crawling the CSSOM, or serializing the OM and then looking at it. Both of these are advanced use-cases, they're not something that 99% (and I think that's a very conservative percentage) of authors will ever do. I, myself, have never inspected the CSSOM in my entire webdev career except when writing WPTs.

So, the audience of people affected by any change here is very tiny, I'll argue, and that audience is composed of relatively skilled authors. (I think this audience can be reasonably summarized as "people who are writing CSS tooling".)

Do any of these changes allow that audience to do something currently difficult or impossible? No, these are solely attempting to improve the consistency of how the OM is represented in certain aspects.

Do they improve this audience's experience in a meaningful way? Arguable. While they improve the consistency in some ways (making the OM and/or the reserialized string more closely resemble the originally authored code), they reduce consistency in other ways (unusual serialization rules; edge cases that require restrictions on where rules can be moved around; widening of the possible types in certain attributes).

For example, right now you can, in theory, take any of the objects in an MQ's .cssRules list and move it out of that MQ, appending it to the stylesheet itself. If the object here is a CSSStyleDeclaration, what happens? Is that an error? If it's a CSSNestRule, but we have special serialization rules that make it look like raw declarations, how does it serialize in this case? (Or, again, maybe it causes an error?)

Or take .insertRule(). Its first argument is a string, which is parsed to obtain a rule to insert. (You can pass a rule object directly, but it's serialized and then re-parsed.) If you can't write @nest directly in a stylesheet, how do you insert such a rule? Do we have to now accept code like x.insertRule("color: blue;"), which is invalid today?

Or a parsed stylesheet will never have an @nest at the start of a style rule, or next to each other. But via CSSOM manipulation you can construct such situations. How do they serialize? Will you still end up with a stylesheet that parses into a different OM than it started from

Whatever we do, if it's "magic" in some way, it'll spawn corner cases like this. Magic like this can be justified, by sufficient benefit to a sufficient audience. I don't think that it qualifies on either metric in this case, however.

In summary, we should just do the simplest possible thing, with the least amount of magic possible, because all of the suggested magic (beyond the initial parser magic) won't actually pay for itself.

[tabatkins]

Do we need the @nest part of the rule? Can we use naked {}? Looking at css-syntax, I don't immediately see why not.

We could, it would just be a new syntax construct to define. Relying on the existing at-rule syntax just makes for a slightly simpler model. And since we don't anticipate authors actually writing this themselves, I don't think the length of the name actually matter in any meaningful way.

[LeaVerou]

@andruud

@LeaVerou Oh. I thought the point of the resolution was to focus the discussion and hopefully converge on something.

Unfortunately I can't make a move on @nest until this issue is resolved. I will likely not be able to ship a breaking change with the intent to break it again later, especially when there's no consensus on what the follow-up change would be.

It is far, far easier to change the details of that than to change the current behavior of nesting later.

The specific changes we're discussing here can not necessarily be made later at all. It is sometimes very hard to understand the risk of changing CSSOM APIs.

We are trying to avoid a breaking change by shipping @nest in some shape or form. @tabatkins is arguing right under your comment that how we implement this in the OM only affects a tiny fraction of authors. You are saying that it would be a breaking change and that "it’s very hard to understand the risk of changing CSSOM APIs". It may be productive if you two have a breakout to align on this, since you work at the same company? Because unless I’m missing something, I don't see how both statements can be true (it is both impactful and not impactful).

@tabatkins

As I said in my final comment in 8738, when considering any new feature, or additional complexity in an existing feature, it's worth paying attention to both the size of the affected audience and the size of the benefit that audience will receive.

Tab, nobody is disagreeing that I/E matters, we’re disagreeing on what the I is.

The existence of an @nest rule is visible solely to authors who are crawling the CSSOM, or serializing the OM and then looking at it. Both of these are advanced use-cases, they're not something that 99% (and I think that's a very conservative percentage) of authors will ever do. I, myself, have never inspected the CSSOM in my entire webdev career except when writing WPTs.

I have responded to this point in the OP:

I strongly disagree with Tab that reading and modifying the CSS OM only affects about a hundred developers in the entire world (!). Reading and modifying the CSS OM is at the core of a ton of very widespread libraries (e.g. jQuery, D3, etc). Even if most authors do not use it directly, I assure you almost every developer reads and modifies the CSS OM regularly, it's just done through several layers of abstractions.

Also, since we’re sharing anecdotes, I have crawled and modified the CSS OM dozens of times in my web dev career, none of which was while writing WPTs. I did not mention it earlier because as an anecdote, I didn’t think it was that relevant.

So, the audience of people affected by any change here is very tiny, I'll argue, and that audience is composed of relatively skilled authors. (I think this audience can be reasonably summarized as "people who are writing CSS tooling".)

Again, the users of these tools are not a small audience.

For example, right now you can, in theory, take any of the objects in an MQ's .cssRules list and move it out of that MQ, appending it to the stylesheet itself. If the object here is a CSSStyleDeclaration, what happens? Is that an error? If it's a CSSNestRule, but we have special serialization rules that make it look like raw declarations, how does it serialize in this case? (Or, again, maybe it causes an error?)

I don’t see how this is different than defining what @nest {} does in the root scope. We’ll have to define something however you look at it. And if anything, defining what root-level declarations do is actually quite useful (anecdotally, I’ve written special code to handle raw declarations at the root level several times when coding CSS demos).

Actually, depending on how we define it root-level declarations could even solve all these use cases that require setting stuff on the document node.

Or take .insertRule(). Its first argument is a string, which is parsed to obtain a rule to insert. (You can pass a rule object directly, but it's serialized and then re-parsed.) If you can't write @nest directly in a stylesheet, how do you insert such a rule? Do we have to now accept code like x.insertRule("color: blue;"), which is invalid today?

Yes! Which again seems like a win and more broadly useful.

Or a parsed stylesheet will never have an @nest at the start of a style rule, or next to each other. But via CSSOM manipulation you can construct such situations. How do they serialize? Will you still end up with a stylesheet that parses into a different OM than it started from

I’m not married to the details, but I was envisioning that these nodes would be merged automatically by the CSS OM, not during serialization. All the Web Platform’s OMs are full of these kinds of normalizations, so I don’t see what the problem is.

[tabatkins]

The users of tools that crawl/modify the CSSOM only matter for this proposal insofar as those tools expose the CSSOM to them (or this proposal makes those tools work better, thus improving the experience of their users). Do you have examples of that?

I don’t see how this is different than defining what @nest {} does in the root scope.

Sure, we have to define what @nest does in the global scope, in exactly the same way we defined what & matches in the global scope. (And it's currently defined to act exactly the same.) But these additional things are more corner cases to define.

Yes! Which again seems like a win and more broadly useful.

How is this a meaningful win over x.insertRule("@nest { color: blue; }")? I mean, it's very slightly shorter, sure. But does it matter otherwise? Is it worth the consistency loss of insertRule() no longer being restricted to taking rules?

I’m not married to the details, but I was envisioning that these nodes would be merged automatically by the CSS OM, not during serialization. All the Web Platform’s OMs are full of these kinds of normalizations, so I don’t see what the problem is.

I don't think that's accurate to say. For example, in the following:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<p>
<script>
var p = document.querySelector("p");
p.appendChild(new Text("foo"));
p.appendChild(new Text("bar"));
console.log(p.childNodes);
</script>

You'll get two Text nodes, despite that being essentially identical to just having a single Text node with "foobar". Having nodes magically merge underneath you as a side-effect of doing something unrelated (like removing a rule that previously happened to separate two of them) is the sort of thing that causes bugs in author code very easily, since objects disappear, indexes change, etc. in an unpredictable manner.

[andruud]

Do we need the @nest part of the rule? Can we use naked {}? Looking at css-syntax, I don't immediately see why not.

We could, it would just be a new syntax construct to define. Relying on the existing at-rule syntax just makes for a slightly simpler model. And since we don't anticipate authors actually writing this themselves, I don't think the length of the name actually matter in any meaningful way.

Yeah, sure. {} was a response to @romainmenke's world where authors might actually want to write it themselves. If @nest{} basically does nothing (except add structure), perhaps {} is a better way to represent it (and more in line with other languages).

Because unless I’m missing something, I don't see how both statements can be true (it is both impactful and not impactful).

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not always easy to prove that CSSOM changes won't break sites, even if you strongly believe it won't.

---

But OK, if shipping @nest ASAP is indeed what everyone wants here, I can try. I'll need positions from Apple and Mozilla. (EDIT: mozilla/standards-positions#1013, WebKit/standards-positions#337).

[LeaVerou]

If we have author facing syntax for this, I'd prefer it's not {} so we can reserve {} for something that is actually useful (of course this changes if we can figure out a way to make @nest {} useful).

---

But OK, if shipping @nest ASAP is indeed what everyone wants here, I can try. I'll need positions from Apple and Mozilla. (EDIT: mozilla/standards-positions#1013, WebKit/standards-positions#337).

Thank you!

[dbaron]

One question that would affect my opinion of whether the CSSOM questions here matter: what's the chance that at some point in the future we'll allow the nesting syntax inside the style attribute? (This sort of syntax has been proposed and specified in the past, but it didn't get traction at the time.) I think the CSSOM is much more relevant for the style attribute than it is for style sheets, since it's more widely used there.

[cdoublev]

3. No @nest, just CSSStyleDeclaration in the CSSOM
   • Criticism: That means .cssRules will also return non-rules? Would .insertRule() also accept CSSStyleDeclaration?

I am not sure I understood the whole conversation between mdubet and emilio about this in #8738, but intermixing list of declarations (or CSSStyleDeclarations) and rules in specified order in an internal property (eg. contents) seemed like an idiomatic solution.

The first list of declarations in contents should be exposed by style. .cssRules and .insertRule() should ignore lists of declarations in contents. .deleteRule() should eventually move declarations into the first list. It does not seem that painfull.

I did not understood why contents would need to be exposed by the public .cssRules. I guess in order to add declarations after rules via the CSSOM. Assuming there is a need for this, a new interface like .insertDeclaration() and/or styles could be defined.

But accepting declarations in .insertRule(), ugh. 😬

[LeaVerou]

One question that would affect my opinion of whether the CSSOM questions here matter: what's the chance that at some point in the future we'll allow the nesting syntax inside the style attribute? (This sort of syntax has been proposed and specified in the past, but it didn't get traction at the time.) I think the CSSOM is much more relevant for the style attribute than it is for style sheets, since it's more widely used there.

My understanding is that this is basically planned, and it's just a matter of resource allocation. Inline style nesting is a huge use case.

---

Since it seems hard to get consensus on making this rule less author facing, could we explore going the other way? I.e. keeping is as author-facing, and trying to make it useful in some way.

Some ideas:

• Someone mentioned that it could be used for grouping. That definitely makes sense. Other threads discuss a potential @sheet rule that basically does named grouping. I wonder if these two could be combined.
• Keeping fallbacks around that can be used for IACVT
• Simple style() conditionals on the current element? Or some other way to toggle these groups on or off or pick among two?

Just brainstorming here. What would be some low hanging, easy-ish to implement functionality that could make this rule actually useful?

Perhaps we should simply name it @group and allow an optional <dashed-ident> before the {, then we can figure out later what these can be used for.

[emilio]

I did not understood why contents would need to be exposed by the public .cssRules. I guess in order to add declarations after rules via the CSSOM. Assuming there is a need for this, a new interface like .insertDeclaration() and/or styles could be defined.

You really want authors to be able to see all the styles in the stylesheet, in the right order. If cssRules doesn't do that you need something else.

[emilio]

Another thing to note, not sure how well this interacts with @scope... @andruud / @dshin-moz / @tabatkins / @mirisuzanne, do you know off-hand?

IIRC we either stash an implicit :scope in the selector (but we can't with @nest, because there's no selector), or use the & which now includes the start bound, right? At least I recall a weird interaction between nesting and @scope, but I don't recall the specifics...

That is, what does:

#a {
  ...

  @scope (#b) {
    color: red;
  }

desugar to now? What would desugar to with @nest and would it work correctly?

[mdubet]

@emilio Nothing different for @scope than the other nested group rules : we currently wrap the declarations in & which desugar to :is(#b) (because the <scope-start> acts as a parent selector).

Exploring the use cases for a more general @group rule is a good path forward (even just changing the name to anything less specific than @nest is a progression imho)

[emilio]

Oh, so the fact that the scope rule is inside the #a selector is completely lost already? That's a bit weird / unintuitive but ok I guess

[andruud]

completely lost

Maybe it's not what you meant, but it's not completely lost, it's in the implicit & in the <scope-start>:

#a {
  ...
  @scope (& #b) {
    @nest {
      color: red;
    }
  }

I think that will be just fine.

---

Perhaps we should simply name it @group and allow an optional <dashed-ident> before the {, then we can figure out later what these can be used for.

I support this too.

Although we could easily add a <dashed-ident> to the prelude later, if/when we have a good reason for it. Maybe we just ship @group {} for now, leaving the prelude wide open for whatever we come up with later.

[emilio]

Ah, cool, It's added to the start of the scope, that seems fine then I agree.

I don't mind calling it @group (but if we do so then it probably should be a grouping rule after all, and not be restricted to declarations...)

[andruud]

I don't mind calling it @group (but if we do so then it probably should be a grouping rule after all, and not be restricted to declarations...)

Yes, agree.

[romainmenke]

So authors could (but likely won't) write :

:root {
  @group {
    --color-a: pink;

    @media screen { --color-a: red; }

    --color-b: lime;
  }
}

Which would be equivalent to :

:root {
  @group {
    --color-a: pink;

    @media screen { --color-a: red; }

    @group { --color-b: lime; }
  }
}

[LeaVerou]

Although we could easily add a <dashed-ident> to the prelude later, if/when we have a good reason for it. Maybe we just ship @group {} for now, leaving the prelude wide open for whatever we come up with later.

The thinking was to support this kind of usage.

It would be nice though if we could come up with some actual useful functionality for these groups other than simple grouping. Are any of the things I mentioned here feasible?

[andruud]

To be clear, this issue blocks actually carrying out #8738. The more we mess around with the details here, the higher the risk that no change will happen at all.

That was not the resolution at all. Please implement the @nest rule as currently specced by @tabatkins. It is far, far easier to change the details of that than to change the current behavior of nesting later. That's the whole point of the resolution we made on Wednesday!

With WebKit's position now clarified, and after some feedback on the Blink Intent-to-Ship, it's pretty clear that this issue is in fact blocking #8738.

[mirisuzanne]

This is a long-shot, not well thought-through - but is there a way for named-group declarations to be available as a form of name-spaced custom property. I don't think this would provide actual new functionality, but some syntax shortcuts for name-spacing and declaring a custom/standard property at the same time:

.now {
  --base-padding: 1em;
  padding: var(--base-padding);

  --color-primary: teal;
  --color-secondary: hotPink;
}

.groups {
  @group --base {
    padding: 1em;
  }

  @group --color {
    --primary: teal;
    --secondary: hotPink;    
  }
  
  .access {
    margin: var(--base.padding);
    border-color: var(--color.--primary);
  }
}

(Hope I'm not straying too far from the question at hand - but it seems like an otherwise-useful rule might help with WebKit's concerns?)

[LeaVerou]

@mirisuzanne Love the creative thinking. Especially since making this rule useful seems like the only path forward with such strong objections from both sides.

Since @group {} with no name needs to apply its content to the rule it's specified on would that apply its declarations when there is no name and store them for later reference if there is a name? That seems a little strange to me, and also clashes with #9992 and mixins.

---

Thinking about it some more, I actually think the IACVT idea might be the lowest hanging fruit and meshes well with the use case of representing declarations on the same level (i.e. it would not have to become a separate rule): we've always said IACVT is necessary because we've thrown away the fallback declarations by then, welllll… @group allows us to preserve them! This also means it does not have to become a grouping rule. I think it's the idea that is closest to how @nest was envisioned.

It could become a convention to have groups as levels of cutting edge-ness:

.foo {
	/* Fallbacks for old browsers */
	color: white;

	@group --baseline-2024 {
		color: color-mix(in oklch, var(--color) 30%, oklch(50% 0.01 none / none));
	}

	@group --cutting-edge {
		color: oklch(from var(--color) 30% clamp(0.01, c * .8, .1) h / alpha);
	}
}

The <dashed-ident> can be dropped, people can always use comments for that.

[romainmenke]

Especially since making this rule useful seems like the only path forward with such strong objections from both sides.

But we also have to be careful with that.
If it always has an effect then it can't be used to solve the problem at hand and we end up where we started.

This rule must be a noop in its simplest form.

---

I really like @mirisuzanne suggestion because it has no effect when there is no prelude.
There is a lot of stuff to consider but also a lot of potential.

Some unstructured questions that spring to mind:

• Should its effects be limited to <dashed-ident>'s (and maybe <custom-ident>)? ie. any regular declaration would remain untouched.
• Could it prefix all <custom-ident>'s and <dashed-ident>'s? Also for things like @keyframes? How badly does it break things like grid template area's?
• Could you import a stylesheet and apply grouping to its contents? Essentially ensuring that there aren't any naming conflicts when mixing 3rd party stylesheets.

[Crissov]

@mirisuzanne As outlined several times before, there is a simple and unambiguous approach to do namespacing of custom properties, but it does not extend well to accessing actual properties.

  @group base {
    padding: 1em;
  }
  @group color {
    --primary: teal;
  }
  
  .access {
    margin: var(base/*???*/padding);
    border-color: var(-color-primary);
  }

[romainmenke]

This rule must be a noop

Instead of @nest, could we use another at-rule that is a noop?

@media all {}

This would not be new syntax.

[LeaVerou]

This rule must be a noop

Instead of @nest, could we use another at-rule that is a noop?

@media all {}

This would not be new syntax.

Ooooooh I love this idea!! Is it really a complete no-op?

• Are there any rules allowed in nesting but not in @media?
• Are there any contexts that don't allow @media?

Another no-op rule:

@supports (all: initial) {

}

[Loirooriol]

So then @media / @supports would need a readonly attribute CSSStyleProperties style; to accept declarations without any intermediate structure?

[tabatkins]

Yes, it would, and that was rejected early on as part of the Nesting design.

[tabatkins]

The @group name, fwiw, seems perfectly fine to me. (And I don't have an opinion on whether it is a CSSRule (only has .style) or a CSSGroupingRule (also has .cssRules, tho the implicitly-created ones would never have anything there).) If the WG prefers that, I'm 100% okay with changing it.

Re: Miriam's idea of letting a name namespace the properties as custom props - I agree with Lea that it's a little strange it would work completely differently between the "no name" and "yes name" variants. I'd prefer to not have that sort of substantial divergence, and instead just do a separate at-rule for the namespacing functionality if that's useful.

Re: Lea's idea of having the grouped rules magically revert when they're IACVT - I agree with Romain that giving the rule a default behavior so it's not a no-op in the default case is probably a bad idea; it feels too magical that just nesting an MQ makes the styles in it automatically revertable, especially since the actual style rules in the MQ wouldn't have that. (But this could potentially be an opt-in behavior.)

This is the core issue here with any idea in this vein - the default behavior must be a no-op, because the parser makes these for plain ol' properties that were not intended to do anything special at all, and they need to act the same as the style rules next to them.

If we want to layer more behavior on this rule afterwards, to make it more worthwhile as an author-exposed construct, then cool! We can definitely do that, and since it has zero prelude it's very customizable for whatever purpose we want in the future. But the prelude-less version must be a no-op; it cannot be fancy.

But yeah, since WebKit has now come out strongly in the "disagree" camp, we need them to get into this discussion if they want any solution to happen - otherwise we'll either do nothing (retaining the reordering, also harming our ability to do mixins in the future) or do something over their objections. Compat is a ticking clock. @fantasai, @jensimmons, others?

[LeaVerou]

@tabatkins What about @group tobikeshed {} having the IACVT behavior I described (with tobikeshed some suitable keyword) and @group {} being a no-op? We could later expand it with more keywords too. Wrt implementation, could you estimate whether it's high or low effort?
Actually, we could just ship the no-op version first, and expand it with keywords later.

@fantasai Would a design like this be agreeable? a) if @group {} ships before @group tobikeshed {} b) if they ship together

[LeaVerou]

If we define this as a CSSRule, can we change to CSSGroupingRule later?

[tabatkins]

@LeaVerou Yeah, that's what I meant by "(But this could potentially be an opt-in behavior.)"

Actually, we could just ship the no-op version first, and expand it with keywords later.

Exactly.

If we define this as a CSSRule, can we change to CSSGroupingRule later?

Yes, that's exactly what we did to CSSStyleRule, and that's vastly more used. This is especially true if we start off with the no-op version; once we make it more useful, it's more likely authors might expect to be able to nest rules in it, like they can with style rules, and then we run the risk of accidentally activating invalid code.

[LeaVerou]

I think that's reasonable. E.g. in SVG <g> by itself is also a no-op.

[andruud]

I actually think the IACVT idea might be the lowest hanging fruit

You didn't say "free", but I'd still like to clarify that we will not get this behavior for free just by having groups. @group would need to behave like a mini-@layer, and we'd basically need revert-group. But it's certainly not impossible, and we can definitely explore it. I can investigate more if it becomes clear that we want to go down this path.

Yes, that's exactly what we did to CSSStyleRule, and that's vastly more used.

This is exactly what we didn't do in Chrome, because we have no way of proving that the change is safe. Also, this is the only part of CSS Nesting WPT coverage that was excluded from the Interop 2024 focus area, because we have no path towards actually making the change.

I still support "useful @group" as a path forwards, but ideally we'd get CSSRule vs CSSGroupingRule right from the start.

[tabatkins]

This is exactly what we didn't do in Chrome

Wait, what? I was referring to adding .cssRules to CSSStyleRule (via making it a subclass of CSSGroupingRule). Are you saying that Chrome isn't exposing the child rules of a style rule?

[andruud]

The spec initially exposed the child rules without making it a subclass of CSSGroupingRule, and then it was changed after Chrome shipped (#8940). Only Firefox actually implemented the resolution.

[tabatkins]

Ohhh, ok, so we do still have .cssRules on the rule, we just haven't shifted the inheritance structure yet. Okay, that's fine. By "what we did to CSSStyleRule" I meant "adding .cssRules", not necessarily "changing the inheritance tree". (My wording did imply that, tho.)

[fantasai]

(tl;dr We support options 2 or 3 from the OP, with a slight preference for 2.)

WebKit strongly opposes introducing an @nest rule for this purpose. We don't think expanding the syntax space of CSS for the convenience of CSSOM representation is an acceptable cost to authors, and prefer a solution that represents interleaved style declarations in the CSSOM in a way that does not have an externality on CSS syntax.

Our suggestion is to:

• Introduce a CSSNestedDeclarations object inheriting from CSSRule and having a .style accessor, and use that to represent all the declaration lists in a CSSStyleRule. It serializes as a raw declaration list.
• Represent the first declaration list both as .style on the CSSStyleRule directly (as currently) and as .style on the first CSSNestedDeclarations object inside .cssRules, making .cssRules a comprehensive and consistent representation of all the contents of the style rule, and .style a convenient shorthand for accessing that first CSSStyleDeclarations object.
• Extend .insertRule() to parse declarations (or add .insertDeclarations()), which appends those declarations to the immediately previous declarations list, if any, and otherwise creates a new CSSNestedDeclarations object to append to and inserts that.

We believe this approach has a lower cost to authors than introducing a new at-rule into the general syntax that has no true purpose other than CSSOM representation of interleaved styles.

We would also be OK with alternative solutions that don't introduce an at-rule, such as inserting CSSStyleDeclaration objects directly into .cssRules, or including only interleaved declaration lists in .cssRules.