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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:02:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDbi-QusQEh2ALyXmGAq1JOf7wuDEBAVdZ6EG19G9tF_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> After reviewing the two stages of edits to
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#at-supports for
> forward-compatibility to match working group resolutions over the
> past few months, I've made a few edits to this section.
>
> In particular, we agreed (at different times):
>  (1) to add functions as a forwards-compatibility hook, currently
>      always false
>  (2) to do the same for anything in parentheses
>
> The previous draft had these changes made in somewhat different
> ways, and did the second one by doing two levels of grammar (a
> general grammar and a current-level grammar).
>
> I restructured this to no longer have two levels of grammar, but
> simply have a new general_enclosed production for
> forwards-compatibility:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/4f68a956be34
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/0eeeaff20f24
>
> (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.)

Ah, clever.  I think my reluctance to do that was that it's
technically ambiguous unless we assume that grammar productions are
matched left-to-right.  If we're fine with that assumption, though,
then I'm all for this, as it's much simpler.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:03:28 GMT

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