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

Re: [css3-conditional] Resolving issues

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:32:37 +0200
Message-ID: <50647FA5.7000508@kozea.fr>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
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.

Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:33:01 UTC

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