W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [css3-conditional] restructured forward-compatibility aspects of @supports grammar

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:39:39 -0800
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121114003939.GA4081@crum.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2012-11-14 01:20 +0100, Simon Sapin wrote:
> Le 14/11/2012 00:25, L. David Baron a écrit :
> >(I believe publication was waiting on me to review these edits; I've
> >now done so, but others should now review the edits I've made.)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The current ED has this paragraph:
> 
> >The above grammar is purposely very loose for forwards-compatibility
> >reasons, since the general_enclosed production allows for substantial
> >future extensibility. Any ‘@supports’ rule that does not parse
> >according to the grammar above is invalid. Style sheets must not use
> >such a rule and processors must ignore such a rule (including all of
> >its contents).
> 
> The last statement (anything matching general_enclosed is invalid)
> seems to be in contradiction with the later statement that
> general_enclosed evaluates to false.

It doesn't say that anything matching general_enclosed is invalid;
it says that things that don't match the grammar are invalid.

I can probably make this clearer by adding:

  (i.e., one that does not match this loose grammar which includes
  the general_enclosed production)

between "grammar above" and "is invalid".

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 00:40:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT