My apologies, I admit my comment is a bit light on details. > Sorry for my ignorance as I have no idea how the parser actually works, but doesn't parsing relative selectors mean to start parsing expecting a combinator first? We don't handle relative selectors normally, because of marching, so we need to make `:has` an exception. Basically we plan to represent relative selector syntax by having a magic placeholder of sorts that represents the `:has` scope, but we don't serialize it. It follows a similar pattern used for the `::slotted` selector. > And is this bug meant to cover both or only the parsing? This would only be for the parsing part.
Bug 1774588 Comment 2 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
My apologies, I admit my comment is a bit light on details. > Sorry for my ignorance as I have no idea how the parser actually works, but doesn't parsing relative selectors mean to start parsing expecting a combinator first? We don't handle relative selectors normally, because of marching, so we need to make `:has` an exception. Basically we plan to represent relative selector syntax by having a magic placeholder of sorts that represents the `:has` scope, but we don't serialize it. It follows a similar pattern used for the `::slotted` selector. > And is this bug meant to cover both or only the parsing? This would only be for the parsing part.