- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:50:45 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Jan/0090.html rejected by @tabatkins > As previous emails have explained, CSS is not versioned. > As for providing an entire spec name, that's problematic for a few reasons. > 1. Some spec names overlap with property names, like "transform". > 2. Spec names are intended to be human-only; we didn't choose their names with the intention to show up in APIs. > 3. Most importantly, the @supports rule is very intentionally designed to rely solely on existing parsing machinery, rather than human-maintained lists. To evaluate a support condition, all a browser has to do is feed the property+value to their CSS parser and see if it parses or not. This system avoids the failure modes of previous attempts at providing an "is this supported?" API, namely that a human-maintained set of features is often out of date or encourages lying. These problems made the legacy hasFeature() JS API mostly useless, for example. Allowing an author to ask "is this entire spec supported?" falls exactly into that failure mode. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3161#issuecomment-424894540 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 22:50:47 UTC