W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css3-conditional] Review of the new grammar for @supports

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 22:25:42 +0100
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Message-ID: <op.wr5m44blf5de51@riboaru-nashiosamus-imac-2.local>
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:54:57 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
wrote:

> On Friday 2012-11-02 22:31 +0100, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> I've checked the new version of @supports, and although I agree with
>> the intent, I've found a few things to nitpick about.
>
> I believe that all the issues you raised were fixed [...]
>
> I'd appreciate your confirmation if you agree these issues are
> fixed, or an explanation of what you think ought to be changed if
> you think they're not.

Thanks for pinging me. I have now reviewed the changes, and I agree that
they fully address the issues I raised.

I have taken this opportunity to review the entire draft, and it looks
very good to me.

I only have two comments on the whole document:

* There is one issue left in the draft:
"Issue 1: This needs to specify what to do if rule is the empty string,
if it contains more than one CSS rule, or if it contains garbage after
a valid rule."
Unless there are backward compatibility concerns, I would say we should
specify that under such conditions SYNTAX_ERR must be thrown. I am not
strongly attached to this if someone has good reasons to prefer
something else, but I think it is a simple and natural answer to the
question.

* "The conditionText attribute, on getting, must return the result of
serializing the associated condition."
We had a discussion at the San Diego face to face about what the
serialization of the supports_rule should look like, but I cannot find
the conclusion we had reached in this draft. Has it been written into
another document? Is it voluntarily left unspecified at the moment? I
would not have a problem with this draft moving forward without
serialization being specified, or with reopening the question, but
since we had discussed it, I wonder where it went.

Best Regards,

    - Florian
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 21:26:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:05 GMT