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

Re: [css3-conditional] Supported vs. valid declaration.

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:04:54 -0700
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120920200454.GA10279@crum.dbaron.org>
On Thursday 2012-09-20 12:48 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2012-09-20 14:51 +0200, Simon Sapin wrote:
> > Le 20/09/2012 14:40, Boris Zbarsky a รฉcrit :
> > >>Iโ€™m thinking in particular of 6.2โ€™s comment on values that might be
> > >>valid in a spec but the UA "do not have a usable level of support for".
> > >Sane UAs would treat that as "invalid".  Of course historically not all
> > >UAs are always sane.:(
> > 
> > ยง6.2 seems to require such sanity in @supports for conformance, but
> > it (or something) should do the same with declarations.
> 
> The second sentence of section 6.2 [1] was intended to do exactly
> this, where it says:
> 
>   # must not accept or support a declaration containing such a value
> 
> Would it be clearer to change:
>   accept -> accept as a declaration
>   support -> <a href="#support-definition">support</a>
> ?
> 
> Or do you see another way to make it clearer?

Actually, on further consideration, I merged the two sections and
rewrote the first two paragraphs to make the whole thing clearer:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#support-definition
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/ce28a0e42de9

-David

-- 
๐„ž   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   ๐„‚
๐„ข   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   ๐„‚
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 20:05:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT