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

Re: [css3-conditional] Resolving issues

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:31:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDh_LX1Hdgge2iKrtW8XZ9EX2Qc=k5nF2a2YoGfAG8Hog@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 2012-09-27 09:35 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
>> > Le 27/09/2012 18:19, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> >> However, I can see the value in being able to explicitly test for
>> >> "does the browser understand this".  So, I may be amenable to just
>> >> treating the function itself as false, and letting negations work as
>> >> normal.
>> >
>> > Yes this is what I meant. A function the browser does not know (that is, any
>> > function in level 1) would be false, not indeterminate.
>> >
>> > But now I see why indeterminate could be more meaningful: a browser might
>> > not understand selector(foo) in @supports, but actually support the selector
>> > foo. But I still think that "not selector(foo)" should be true in this case,
>> > as there is no harm in using a fallback that avoids a feature even though
>> > the feature is supported.
>>
>> That's a good argument.  Okay, I give.
>>
>> Hey, rest of the WG (especially dbaron)!  What do you think about this:
>>
>> Amend the grammar of supports_condition to also accept arbitrary
>> functions, and treat unknown functions (right now, all of them) as
>> false.
>
> This works for me.  I think we should mark it at-risk, though, given
> the lateness of the addition; I'd like the ability to reconsider
> without having to go through another last call.
>
> (We could also consider introducing a single function, to test
> whether a function is supported.  Thus
> supports-function(supports-function) would be true and
> supports-function() with any other argument would be false.)

Cool, I've added it now, and added an entry to the at-risk list for it.

Are you okay with the suggested resolutions to the other remaining
issues?  (Punting @import improvements to the next level, dropping the
issue about Fonts not defining its grammar, and punting @document
entirely to level 4.)

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 00:44:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT