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

Re: RE: [css3-conditional] Resolving issues

From: 张金龙 <jinlongz@oupeng.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:09:53 +0800
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2012092612095248509110@oupeng.com>
Hi all~

I'm exciting to hear that the Conditional spec <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/> is basically finished.  
Now I need to update changes to my translational wiki page <http://www.w3.org/html/ig/zh/wiki/Css3-conditional>.  My wiki page is base on Editor's Draft 31 July 2012. 
Whether it has  changelog? 


Zhang Jinlong --- Web Specialist

skype : jinlong3546
QQ : 237585693
Weibo : http://weibo.com/newwave

From: Sylvain Galineau
Date: 2012-09-25 23:13
To: Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style list
Subject: RE: [css3-conditional] Resolving issues

[Tab Atkins Jr.:]
> The Conditional spec <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/> is
> basically finished.  It's only got a handful of issues preventing it from
> advancing:
> Issue 1, using the new conditions with @import.  We propose pushing this
> to level 4.  It's not high-priority, so there's no reason to delay the
> rest of the spec, or rush its development.


> Issue 2, the "font_face_rule" production is not defined by Fonts.  We
> propose just fixing Fonts, and removing this issue.  ^_^

Seems reasonable.

> Issue 3, forward compatible parsing of @supports.  We believe the forward-
> compatible parsing is sufficient here.  Testing selectors and whatnot can
> be easily done in a way that is invalid per the current grammar.

I recall we talked about this in San Diego though I'm not sure we reached
a conclusion? I'd like to hear more about this one.

> Issue 4, adding an example with !important, can be trivially done.
> I'll pick that up tomorrow - it takes all of ten minutes.
> The remaining issues are all regarding @document, and are substantially
> harder.  We propose pushing @document to level 4, so the rest of the spec
> can advance quickly, since we already have several implementors wanting to
> release the other features.

I agree with this.

> Are our suggested fixes acceptable?  Are there any other issues that
> aren't yet marked in the draft?  If the answers are yes and no,
> respectively, we'll fix them and request a new WD this week or next.
> ~TJ and fantasai

(image/jpeg attachment: 18327_head-foot.jpg)

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 04:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:04 UTC