On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > Le 14/06/2012 02:44, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> Declaration >> mode has been altered to accept at-rules as well as declarations. >> (This also makes it easier in the future to accept at-rules inside of >> style rules, which we want for a few things like Mixins and such.) > > So is it up to each at-rule to define in which "context" it is allowed? For > example, @import is only allowed at the stylesheet top-level[1]; @top-left > only in @page. Style rules would be allowed to contain at-rules, but no > at-rule that currently exists is allowed to be contained in a style rule. Yes, as usual. I'll probably define a few terms to help with this so future at-rule definitions can just hook into them. > Should parsers preserve the overall ordering when something contains both > declarations and at-rules? ie. should they have a single list with mixed > content, or can they provide two separate lists (like style and cssRules in > CSSOM) That's for CSSOM to decide. It doesn't matter yet in the one place where they're mixable (@page), but if we do mixins as an at-rule like @include or something, it will. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 14 June 2012 17:19:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT