1. Introduction
This section is not normative.
This module describes support for nesting a style rule within another style rule, allowing the inner rule’s selector to reference the elements matched by the outer rule. This feature allows related styles to be aggregated into a single structure within the CSS document, improving readability and maintainability.
1.1. Module Interactions
This module introduces new parser rules that extend the [CSS21] parser model. It introduces selectors that extend the [SELECTORS-4] module. It extends and modifies some IDL and algorithms defined in the [CSSOM-1] module.
1.2. Values
This specification does not define any new properties or values.
2. Explainer
This section is non-normative.
Imagine you have some CSS that you’d like to write in a more compact way.
.foo{ color : green; } .foo .bar{ font-size : 1.4 rem ; }
With Nesting, you can write such code as:
.foo{ color : green; .bar{ font-size : 1.4 rem ; } }
If you’ve been nesting styles in Sass or other CSS preprocessors, you will find this very familiar.
You can nest any rules inside of a parent style rule:
main{ div{ ...} .bar{ ...} #baz{ ...} :has ( p) { ...} ::backdrop{ ...} [ lang|="zh" ] { ...} *{ ...} }
By default, the child rule’s selector is assumed to connect to the parent rule by a descendant combinator, but you can start the nested selector with any combinator to change that:
main{ + article{ ...} > p{ ...} ~ main{ ...} }
The new & selector lets you refer to the elements matched by the parent selector explictly, so the previous examples could have been written as:
main{ & + article{ ...} & > p{ ...} & ~ main{ ...} }
But you can place the & in other locations within the nested selector, to indicate other types of relationships between the parent and child rule. For example, this CSS:
ul{ padding-left : 1 em ; } .component ul{ padding-left : 0 ; }
Can be rewritten using Nesting as:
ul{ padding-left : 1 em ; .component &{ padding-left : 0 ; } }
Again, the & gives you a way to say “this is where I want the nested selector to go”.
It’s also handy when you don’t want a space between your selectors. For example:
a{ color : blue; &:hover{ color : lightblue; } }
Such code yields the same result as
.
Without the &,
you’d get
—notice the space between a
and :hover
—which would fail to style your hover link.
You can nest more than one layer deep—nesting CSS inside already-nested CSS—in as many levels as you desire. You can mix Nesting with Container Queries, Supports Queries, Media Queries, and/or Cascade Layers however you want. (Nearly) anything can go inside of anything.
3. Nesting Style Rules
Style rules can be nested inside of other styles rules. These nested style rules act exactly like ordinary style rules—associating properties with elements via selectors—but they "inherit" their parent rule’s selector context, allowing them to further build on the parent’s selector without having to repeat it, possibly multiple times.
A nested style rule is exactly like a normal style rule, except that it can use relative selectors, which are implicitly relative to the elements matched by the parent rule.
.foo{ color : red; a{ color : blue; } }
is valid, and equivalent to:
.foo{ color : red; } .foo a{ color : blue; }
The nested rule can also use the nesting selector to directly refer to the parent rule’s matched elements, or use relative selector syntax to specify relationships other than "descendant".
.foo{ color : red; &:hover{ color : blue; } } /* equivalent to: */ .foo{ color : red; } .foo:hover{ color : blue; }
.foo{ color : red; + .bar{ color : blue; } } /* equivalent to: */ .foo{ color : red; } .foo + .bar{ color : blue; }
3.1. Syntax
The contents of style rules now accepts nested style rules and at-rules, in addition to the existing declarations.
Nested style rules differ from non-nested rules in the following ways:
-
A nested style rule accepts a <relative-selector-list> as its prelude (rather than just a <selector-list>). Any relative selectors are relative to the elements represented by the nesting selector.
-
If a selector in the <relative-selector-list> does not start with a combinator but does contain the nesting selector, it is interpreted as a non-relative selector.
The precise details of how nested style rules are parsed are defined in [CSS-SYNTAX-3].
An invalid nested style rule is ignored, along with its contents, but does not invalidate its parent rule.
Nested rules with relative selectors include the specificity of their implied nesting selector. For example, .foo { > .bar {...}} and .foo { & > .bar {...}} have the same specificity for their inner rule.
For example, if one component uses the class .foo, and a nested component uses .fooBar, you could write this in Sass as:
.foo{ color : blue; &Bar{ color : red; } } /* In Sass, this is equivalent to .foo { color: blue; } .fooBar { color: red; } */
This is not allowed in CSS, as nesting is not a syntax transformation, but rather matches on the actual elements the parent selector matches.
It is also true that the selector &Bar is invalid in CSS in the first place, as the Bar part is a type selector, which must come first in the compound selector. (That is, it must be written as Bar&.) So, luckily, there is no overlap between CSS Nesting and the preprocessor syntax.
Note: This is phrased in this explicit manner so as to catch cases like :is(:unknown(&), .bar), where an unknown selector (which, being unknown, we have no way of knowing whether the argument is meant to be parsed as a selector or not) is the only part of the selector that contains an &. As that might be a perfectly valid selector that’s only supported by newer browsers, and we don’t want parsing to be dependent on unrelated versioning issues, we treat it as still containing the nesting selector.
If a <forgiving-selector-list> has an item that contains the nesting selector but is invalid, that item is preserved exactly as-is rather than being discarded. (This does not change the matching behavior of the selector—an invalid selector still fails to match anything—just the serialization of the selector.)
The preceding paragraph needs to move to Selectors when we move & itself to Selectors; I’m monkey-patching for convenience here.
3.2. Examples
/* & can be used on its own */ .foo{ color : blue; & > .bar{ color : red; } > .baz{ color : green; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: blue; } .foo > .bar { color: red; } .foo > .baz { color: green; } */ /* or in a compound selector, refining the parent’s selector */ .foo{ color : blue; &.bar{ color : red; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: blue; } .foo.bar { color: red; } */ /* multiple selectors in the list are all relative to the parent */ .foo, .bar{ color : blue; + .baz, &.qux{ color : red; } } /* equivalent to .foo, .bar { color: blue; } :is(.foo, .bar) + .baz, :is(.foo, .bar).qux { color: red; } */ /* & can be used multiple times in a single selector */ .foo{ color : blue; & .bar & .baz & .qux{ color : red; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: blue; } .foo .bar .foo .baz .foo .qux { color: red; } */ /* & doesn’t have to be at the beginning of the selector */ .foo{ color : red; .parent &{ color : blue; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: red; } .parent .foo { color: blue; } */ .foo{ color : red; :not ( &) { color : blue; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: red; } :not(.foo) { color: blue; } */ /* But if you use a relative selector , an initial & is implied automatically */ .foo{ color : red; + .bar + &{ color : blue; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: red; } .foo + .bar + .foo { color: blue; } */ /* Somewhat silly, but & can be used all on its own, as well. */ .foo{ color : blue; &{ padding : 2 ch ; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: blue; } .foo { padding: 2ch; } // or .foo { color: blue; padding: 2ch; } */ /* Again, silly, but can even be doubled up. */ .foo{ color : blue; &&{ padding : 2 ch ; } } /* equivalent to .foo { color: blue; } .foo.foo { padding: 2ch; } */ /* The parent selector can be arbitrarily complicated */ .error, #404{ &:hover > .baz{ color : red; } } /* equivalent to :is(.error, #404):hover > .baz { color: red; } */ .ancestor .el{ .other-ancestor &{ color : red; } } /* equivalent to .other-ancestor :is(.ancestor .el) { color: red; } /* As can the nested selector */ .foo{ &:is ( .bar, &.baz) { color : red; } } /* equivalent to .foo :is(.bar, .foo.baz) { color: red; } */ /* Multiple levels of nesting "stack up" the selectors */ figure{ margin : 0 ; > figcaption{ background : hsl ( 0 0 % 0 % /50 % ); > p{ font-size : .9 rem ; } } } /* equivalent to figure { margin: 0; } figure > figcaption { background: hsl(0 0% 0% / 50%); } figure > figcaption > p { font-size: .9rem; } */ /* Example usage with Cascade Layers */ @layer base{ html{ block-size : 100 % ; body{ min-block-size : 100 % ; } } } /* equivalent to @layer base { html { block-size: 100%; } html body { min-block-size: 100%; } } */ /* Example nesting Cascade Layers */ @layer base{ html{ block-size : 100 % ; @layer support{ body{ min-block-size : 100 % ; } } } } /* equivalent to @layer base { html { block-size: 100%; } } @layer base.support { html body { min-block-size: 100%; } } */ /* Example usage with Scoping */ @scope ( .card) to( > header) { :scope{ inline-size : 40 ch ; aspect-ratio : 3 /4 ; > header{ border-block-end : 1 px solid white; } } } /* equivalent to @scope (.card) to (> header) { :scope { inline-size: 40ch; aspect-ratio: 3/4; } :scope > header { border-block-end: 1px solid white; } } */ /* Example nesting Scoping */ .card{ inline-size : 40 ch ; aspect-ratio : 3 /4 ; @scope ( &) to( > header > *) { :scope > header{ border-block-end : 1 px solid white; } } } /* equivalent to .card { inline-size: 40ch; aspect-ratio: 3/4; } @scope (.card) to (> header > *) { :scope > header { border-block-end: 1px solid white; } } */
3.3. Nesting Other At-Rules
In addition to nested style rules, this specification allows nested group rules inside of style rules: any at-rule whose body contains style rules can be nested inside of a style rule as well.
When nested in this way, the contents of a nested group rule's block are parsed as <block-contents> rather than <rule-list>:
-
Style rules are nested style rules, with their nesting selector taking its definition from the nearest ancestor style rule.
-
Properties can be directly used, acting as if they were nested in a nested declarations rule.
-
all the conditional group rules (@container, @media, @supports)
The meanings and behavior of such nested group rules is otherwise unchanged, unless otherwise specified.
/* Properties can be directly used */ .foo{ display : grid; @media ( orientation: landscape) { grid-auto-flow : column; } } /* equivalent to: */ .foo{ display : grid; } @media ( orientation: landscape) { .foo{ grid-auto-flow : column} } /* and also equivalent to the unnested: */ .foo{ display : grid; } @media ( orientation: landscape) { .foo{ grid-auto-flow : column; } } /* Conditionals can be further nested */ .foo{ display : grid; @media ( orientation: landscape) { grid-auto-flow : column; @media ( min-width >1024 px ) { max-inline-size : 1024 px ; } } } /* equivalent to */ .foo{ display : grid; } @media ( orientation: landscape) { .foo{ grid-auto-flow : column; } } @media ( orientation: landscape) and( min-width >1024 px ) { .foo{ max-inline-size : 1024 px ; } } /* Example nesting Cascade Layers */ html{ @layer base{ block-size : 100 % ; @layer support{ & body{ min-block-size : 100 % ; } } } } /* equivalent to */ @layer base{ html{ block-size : 100 % ; } } @layer base.support{ html body{ min-block-size : 100 % ; } } /* Example nesting Scoping */ .card{ inline-size : 40 ch ; aspect-ratio : 3 /4 ; @scope ( &) { :scope{ border : 1 px solid white; } } } /* equivalent to */ .card{ inline-size : 40 ch ; aspect-ratio : 3 /4 ; } @scope ( .card) { :scope{ border-block-end : 1 px solid white; } }
Runs of consecutive directly-nested properties are automatically wrapped in nested declarations rules. (This is observable in the CSSOM.)
3.3.1. Nested @scope Rules
When the @scope rule is a nested group rule, an & in the <scope-start> selector refers to the elements matched by the nearest ancestor style rule.
For the purposes of the style rules in its body and its own <scope-end> selector, the @scope rule is treated as an ancestor style rule, matching the elements matched by its <scope-start> selector.
.parent{ color : blue; @scope ( & > .scope) to( & .limit) { & .content{ color : red; } } }
is equivalent to:
.parent{ color : blue; } @scope ( .parent > .scope) to( .parent > .scope .limit) { .parent > .scope .content{ color : red; } }
3.4. Mixing Nesting Rules and Declarations
When a style rule contains both declarations and nested style rules or nested group rules, all three can be arbitrarily mixed. Declarations coming after or between rules are implicitly wrapped in nested declarations rules, to preserve their order relative to the other rules.
article{ color : green; &{ color : blue; } color: red; } /* equivalent to */ article{ color : green; } :is ( article) { color : blue; } article{ color : red; } /* NOT equivalent to */ article{ color : green; } article{ color : red; } :is ( article) { color : blue; }
For the purpose of determining the Order Of Appearance, nested style rules and nested group rules are considered to come after their parent rule.
article{ color : blue; &{ color : red; } }
Both declarations have the same specificity (0,0,1), but the nested rule is considered to come after its parent rule, so the color: red declarations wins the cascade.
On the other hand, in this example:
article{ color : blue; :where ( &) { color : red; } }
The :where() pseudoclass reduces the specificity of the nesting selector to 0, so the color: red declaration now has a specificity of (0,0,0), and loses to the color: blue declaration before "Order Of Appearance" comes into consideration.
Note: While one can freely intermix declarations and nested rules, it’s harder to read and somewhat confusing to do so, since the later properties are automatically wrapped in a nested declarations rule that doesn’t appear in the source text. For readability’s sake, it’s recommended that authors put all their properties first in a style rule, before any nested rules. (This also happens to act slightly better in older user agents: due to specifics of how parsing and error-recovery work, properties appearing after nested rules can get skipped.)
4. Nesting Selector: the & selector
When using a nested style rule, one must be able to refer to the elements matched by the parent rule; that is, after all, the entire point of nesting. To accomplish that, this specification defines a new selector, the nesting selector, written as & (U+0026 AMPERSAND).
When used in the selector of a nested style rule, the nesting selector represents the elements matched by the parent rule. When used in any other context, it represents the same elements as :scope in that context (unless otherwise defined).
a, b{ & c{ color : blue; } }
is equivalent to
:is ( a, b) c{ color : blue; }
The nesting selector cannot represent pseudo-elements (identical to the behavior of the :is() pseudo-class).
.foo, .foo::before, .foo::after{ color : red; &:hover{ color : blue; } }
the & only represents the elements matched by .foo; in other words, it’s equivalent to:
.foo, .foo::before, .foo::after{ color : red; } .foo:hover{ color : blue; }
We’d like to relax this restriction, but need to do so simultaneously for both :is() and &, since they’re intentionally built on the same underlying mechanisms. (Issue 7433)
The specificity of the nesting selector is equal to the largest specificity among the complex selectors in the parent style rule’s selector list (identical to the behavior of :is()), or zero if no such selector list exists.
#a, b{ & c{ color : blue; } } .foo c{ color : red; }
Then in a DOM structure like
< b class = foo > < c > Blue text</ c > </ b >
The text will be blue, rather than red. The specificity of the & is the larger of the specificities of #a ([1,0,0]) and b ([0,0,1]), so it’s [1,0,0], and the entire & c selector thus has specificity [1,0,1], which is larger than the specificity of .foo c ([0,1,1]).
Notably, this is different than the result you’d get if the nesting were manually expanded out into non-nested rules, since the color: blue declaration would then be matching due to the b c selector ([0,0,2]) rather than #a c ([1,0,1]).
Why is the specificity different than non-nested rules?
The nesting selector intentionally uses the same specificity rules as the :is() pseudoclass, which just uses the largest specificity among its arguments, rather than tracking which selector actually matched.
This is required for performance reasons; if a selector has multiple possible specificities, depending on how precisely it was matched, it makes selector matching much more complicated and slower.
That skirts the question, tho: why do we define & in terms of :is()? Some non-browser implementations of Nesting-like functionality do not desugar to :is(), largely because they predate the introduction of :is() as well. Instead, they desugar directly; however, this comes with its own significant problems, as some (reasonably common) cases can accidentally produce massive selectors, due to the exponential explosion of possibilities.
.a1, .a2, .a3{ .b1, .b2, .b3{ .c1, .c2, .c3{ ...; } } } /* naively desugars to */ .a1 .b1 .c1, .a1 .b1 .c2, .a1 .b1 .c3, .a1 .b2 .c1, .a1 .b2 .c2, .a1 .b2 .c3, .a1 .b3 .c1, .a1 .b3 .c2, .a1 .b3 .c3, .a2 .b1 .c1, .a2 .b1 .c2, .a2 .b1 .c3, .a2 .b2 .c1, .a2 .b2 .c2, .a2 .b2 .c3, .a2 .b3 .c1, .a2 .b3 .c2, .a2 .b3 .c3, .a3 .b1 .c1, .a3 .b1 .c2, .a3 .b1 .c3, .a3 .b2 .c1, .a3 .b2 .c2, .a3 .b2 .c3, .a3 .b3 .c1, .a3 .b3 .c2, .a3 .b3 .c3{ ...}
Here, three levels of nesting, each with three selectors in their lists, produced 27 desugared selectors. Adding more selectors to the lists, adding more levels of nesting, or making the nested rules more complex can make a relatively small rule expand into multiple megabytes of selectors (or much, much more!).
Some CSS tools avoid the worst of this by heuristically discarding some variations, so they don’t have to output as much but are still probably correct, but that’s not an option available to UAs.
Desugaring with :is() instead eliminates this problem entirely, at the cost of making specificity slightly less useful, which was judged a reasonable trade-off.
The nesting selector is capable of matching featureless elements, if they were matched by the parent rule.
While the position of a nesting selector in a compound selector does not make a difference in its behavior (that is, &.foo and .foo& match the same elements), the existing rule that a type selector, if present, must be first in the compound selector continues to apply (that is, &div is illegal, and must be written div& instead).
5. The Nested Declarations Rule
For somewhat-technical reasons, it’s important to be able to distinguish properties that appear at the start of a style rule’s contents from those that appear interspersed with other rules.
.foo{ color : red; @media ( ...) { ...} background: blue; }
We need to treat the color: red and background: blue slightly differently.
In particular, in the CSSOM,
the color: red is exposed in the style rule’s style
attribute,
while the background: blue needs to instead show up in its cssRules
list.
To accomplish this, CSS parsing automatically wraps such properties in a special child rule to contain them. However, if we were to wrap them in a style rule with an & selector, it would have somewhat unfortunate behavior:
.foo, .foo::before{ color : red; &{ background : blue; } }
the nested rule does not apply the background property to the .foo::before elements, because the & can’t represent pseudo-elements.
Similarly, child declarations in nested non-style rules
need to be exposed as rules in some way,
because these sorts of rules (like @media)
have never had style
properties.
These run into the same problems as above.
To address all of these issue, we instead wrap runs of consecutive directly-nested properties in a nested declarations rule.
Unless otherwise specified, a nested declarations rule is a nested style rule, and acts identically to any other style rule. It matches the exact same elements and pseudo-elements as its parent style rule, with the same specificity behavior. (This is similar to being a style rule with an & selector, but slightly more powerful, as explained above.)
Why does the nested declarations rule exist?
Originally, this specification grouped all declarations in style rules together, "moving" them from their original location to act as if they were placed at the front of the rule. It also automatically wrapped raw declarations inside of nested group rules in plain style rules, using the & selector.
There are two major reasons we switched to instead use the nested declarations rule.
First, using an & {...} rule to implicitly wrap declarations in a nested group rule also changed the behavior. As shown in the example following this note, it breaks cases where the parent style rule contains pseudo-elements, and even when that’s not the case, it potentially changes the specificity behavior of the nested declarations. Switching to the nested declarations rule avoids these problems, making the behavior of nested @media/etc identical to the behavior of *non*-nested @media/etc.
Second, there are some details of future CSS features (notably, "mixins") that simply won’t work correctly if interleaved declarations are automatically moved to the front of the style rule. We need to keep their relative order with other rules, and in order to actually make that representable in the CSSOM, that means they have to be wrapped in some kind of rule. The same issues as the previous paragraph apply if we just use a normal & {...} rule, so the nested declarations rule lets us do so without side effects.
.foo, .foo::before, .foo::after{ color : black; @media ( prefers-color-scheme: dark) { &{ color : white; } } }
In a darkmode page, the .foo element would have its text color changed to white, but its ::before and ::after pseudos would remain black, because the & selector can’t represent pseudo-elements.
However, it was instead written as:
.foo, .foo::before, .foo::after{ color : black; @media ( prefers-color-scheme: dark) { color : white; } }
Then the color: white is implicitly wrapped in a nested declarations rule, which is guaranteed to match exactly the same as its parent style rule, so the element and its pseudo-elements would all have white text in a darkmode page.
.foo{ color : black; @media ( ...) { ...} background: silver; }
If the .foo rule’s CSSOM object is examined,
its style
attribute
will contain only one declaration:
the color: black one.
The background: silver declaration
will instead be found in the implicitly-created nested declarations child rule,
at fooRule
.
6. CSSOM
Note: [CSSOM-1] now defines
that CSSStyleRule
can have child rules.
When serializing a relative selector in a nested style rule, the selector must be absolutized, with the implied nesting selector inserted.
6.1. The CSSNestedDeclarations
Interface
The CSSNestedDeclarations
interface represents a nested declarations rule.
[Exposed =Window ]interface :
CSSNestedDeclarations CSSRule { [SameObject ,PutForwards =cssText ]readonly attribute CSSStyleProperties style ; };
style
attribute
must return a CSSStyleProperties
object for the rule,
with the following properties:
- computed flag
-
Unset
- readonly flag
-
Unset
- declarations
-
The declared declarations in the rule, in specified order.
- parent CSS rule
- owner node
-
Null
The CSSNestedDeclarations
rule serializes as if its declaration block had been serialized directly.
Note: This means that multiple adjacent nested declarations rules (which is possible to create with e.g. insertRule
)
will collapse into a single rule when serialized and parsed again.
7. Changes
Significant changes since the Feb 14, 2023 Working Draft:
-
Clarified that the nesting selector is allowed to match featureless elements.
-
Switched &div back to being invalid; now that Syntax does "infinite lookahead", we no longer need to allow it. Plus, doing so avoids a clash with preprocessors. (Issue 8662)
-
CSSOM now defines that CSSStyleRule is a CSSGroupingRule subclass, so the manual definition of the
cssRules
attribute and related machinery was removed. (Issue 8940) -
Clarified the effect of the implied nesting selector on specificity. (Issue 9069)
-
Declarations intermixed with rules (or all declarations in nested group rules) are now automatically wrapped in
rules. (Also the@nest
rule was added.) (Issue 8738)@nest -
Replaced
with nested declarations rules. (Issue 10234)@nest