CSS Cascade 6: §3.5.1 says scope proximity wins regardless of specificity, while §3.1 compares specificity first

§3.5.1 of the Editor's Draft says the cascade prefers the more proximate scoping root “regardless of specificity”. §3.1 lists Specificity before Scope Proximity, and the changes list records “Removed strong scope proximity” after the Working Group resolved in issue 6790 that proximity is weaker than specificity. The §3.5.1 sentence still describes the old rule; the Working Draft of 6 September 2024 has the same sentence.

Consequence

#page img { border-radius: 0 } (specificity 1,0,1) against @scope (#hero) { img { border-radius: 50% } } (0,0,1) for an image inside #hero: by §3.1 the radius is 0, by the §3.5.1 sentence it is 50%.

Proposed correction

Reword the §3.5.1 sentence to match §3.1: proximity decides only when all earlier cascade criteria tie.

Issued by

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) — CSS Working Group

Act

CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 6 (Editor's Draft, 28 April 2026)

Place

§3.5.1 against §3.1

Record

Discrepancy

Class

Text of the act

Where it arose

The text of the act

Arxo's conclusion

Confirmed

Official text

Unchanged at last check

Last checked

2026-10-31

Evidence

Reproduced by execution. Quotations are verbatim from the official material; translations are ours and marked.

The cascade prioritizes declarations with a more proximate scoping root, regardless of specificity or order of appearance by applying scope proximity between the scoping root and the subject of each scoped style rule.

When comparing declarations from two style rules, the declaration belonging to the style rule with the highest specificity wins.

Removed strong scope proximity. (Issue 6790)

How to check it without Arxo's tools

1. Open CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 6, Editor's Draft of 28 April 2026 (W3C CSS Working Group) and find §3.5.1 Effects of @scope; §3.1 Cascade Sorting Order, Specificity; §5.1 Changes since the Working Draft. Compare the text with the quotation above. A copy is kept in this register: 6d3da5b4b2077a16-ed-css-cascade-6.html (SHA-256 6d3da5b4b2077a16b70b1fc38967bca88c41f1f9fd85aba223e4ae2525953e3c, copy of the official file).
2. The finding holds if the quoted passages read as shown and the comparison gives the result stated at the top of this page. If it does not, write to us with the record ID.

How this finding was made

AI agents read the specifications and compared their sections; the example was also run through executable rules of both readings. An AI coordinator checked the place against the full Editor's Draft and the Working Group's issue tracker, and two further AI models checked the report before filing.

Responsible institutions

• W3C CSS Working Group — maintains the specification

Reported to

Responses

No response recorded.

History

1. 2026-10-31Confirmed by Arxo
2. 2026-10-31Entered in the register
3. 2026-10-31Reported to W3C CSS Working Group (public issue tracker)

Cite this record

Arxo Law, Arxo Findings Register, ARXO-2026-0332, https://arxo.io/findings/ARXO-2026-0332/ (status as of 2026-10-31). Data: ARXO-2026-0332.json.