W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2011

Re: [css3-conditional] alternate OR syntax

From: Paul Irish <paul.irish@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:32:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHSVx=969r_uSdUxqdWS2ZN-0AnJ2VUFWtTL2SC_VQ_wY1Uo-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:48 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Monday 2011-10-10 11:09 -0700, Paul Irish wrote:
> > Secondly, on disjunction, I have a concern. I imagine much of the time
> > authors will be using @supports for new properties, and as such they'll
> be
> > vendor prefixed. This is illustrated in a spec example:
> >
> > @supports ( box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px black ) or
> >           ( -moz-box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px black ) or
> >           ( -webkit-box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px black ) or
> >           ( -o-box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px black ) {
> >   ...
> > }
> >
> > Is it reasonable to assume that multiple rules within a pair of parens
> mean
> > the same thing? So, instead, like so...
> >
> > @supports ( box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px black; -moz-box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px
> > black; -webkit-box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px black; -o-box-shadow: 2px 2px 2px
> > black ) {
> >   ...
> > }
> >
> > Without checking the spec, that's how I had assumed things had worked.
>
> The problem here is that for many other use cases (i.e., things not
> involving prefixes), authors are likely to be more interested in
> 'and' and might expect 'and' to be the default rather than 'or'.
>

Yeah definitely, though I think nearly everything running through @supports
will involve prefixes for a while.  :)


> Rather than violating expectations half the time (leading to
> confusion when writing CSS and confusion when reading CSS written by
> others), I think it's better to require an explicit 'and' or 'or'.
>

Cool. Certainly more explicit.
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 22:33:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT