[css-cascade-6] Clarify circular dependency (In wording) in finding scoping limits. #10295
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Finding scoping limits mention in-scope elements, which in turn mentions scoping limits. Add wording to ignore the scoping limits portion of in scope, which seems implied.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Finding scoping limits mention in-scope elements, which in turn mentions scoping limits, which in turn etc etc. Just a wording issue, since it can be inferred that the scoping limit portion is ignored at this time.
Still, I think this is helps reduce confusion on first-read.