W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2008

RE: [CSS2.1] Grammar for @media versus general block parsing

From: Justin Rogers <justrog@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:53:01 -0700
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00BD06E707F60B4F9D6A3E75C712209D53DBA75239@NA-EXMSG-C104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Supporting such a feature in CSS 3 won't be a problem. The consideration
here is how a CSS 2.1 standards compliant parsing engine should treat the
rule given the current wording of the specification.

I would still desire some clarification that would trump the current
behavior of Opera and IE 8. When considering a pure CSS 2.1 parsing
context. If at-rules are invalid, but parse-able then a text clarification
should be added to the specification and both Opera and IE 8 would
have to take changes to support such behavior.

Justin Rogers [MSFT]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:04 AM
To: Justin Rogers
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [CSS2.1] Grammar for @media versus general block parsing

* Justin Rogers wrote:
>So the question is, should the grammar in this case be read strictly
>since it clearly points out a semantic for the @media block, and thus
>only allow rule-sets making the Opera/IE 8 behavior correct? Or should
>the parsers allow any statement within the block including the at-rule?

CSS Level 3 allows using e.g. @page as child of @media, so you will end
up implementing the latter behavior either way.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 02:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:37 UTC