content(Fx142): & inside at-scope blocks has no implicit specificity

[bsmth]

Description

We have another case where we're describing specificity, @scope and &. Removing the duplication and pointing to browser compat

Motivation

We have conflicting info, specs are updated and it looks like Fx142 is the only browser to make default behavior spec-compliant.

Related issues and pull requests

• [CSS] Change & behaviour inside @scope block as per spec resolution #40481
• Firefox 142 treats & as :where(:scope) in @scope blocks browser-compat-data#27723

Fixes #40981

[github-actions]

Preview URLs

• /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@scope
• /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_cascade/Specificity

Flaws (3)

Note! 1 document with no flaws that don't need to be listed. 🎉

URL: /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@scope
Title: @scope
Flaw count: 3

• broken_links:
  • Can't resolve /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/scope-start
  • Can't resolve /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/scope-end
  • Can't resolve /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/block-contents

External URLs (1)

URL: /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@scope
Title: @scope

• https://css.oddbird.net/scope/parent-selector/ (1 time) (Note! This may be a new URL 👀)

(comment last updated: 2025-09-11 09:22:42)

[bsmth]

Q: Is this appropriate here:

browser-compat:
  - css.at-rules.scope
  - css.selectors.nesting.at-scope

[estelle]

I think we should add the css.selectors.nesting.at-scope data to css..at-rules.scope, but, yes, definitely add especially if the top & part doesn't show, but would be better to have one table instead of two.

[bsmth]

Added the extra entry in c9ad1f5

css.selectors.nesting.at-scope data to css.at-rules.scope

Do you mean we should move it in BCD or duplicate the entry to be in both places there? It's tricky to decide where it should live, my first thoughts were that it's specific to &.

[estelle]

duplicate it, as i think it's a bug in both

[estelle]

looks good. Lots of suggestions, but they're all minor (suggesting links mostly)

[estelle]

I think we should add the css.selectors.nesting.at-scope data to css..at-rules.scope, but, yes, definitely add especially if the top & part doesn't show, but would be better to have one table instead of two.

[estelle]

@bsmth are you still reviewing this, or should i re-review?

[bsmth]

@bsmth are you still reviewing this, or should i re-review?

Thanks for checking, I'll push some of the suggestions and re-request review shortly 👍🏻

[estelle]

Thanks! 🎉