- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:01:23 -0800
- To: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@nickshanks.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Friday 2013-01-25 07:35 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2013-01-25 13:27 +0000, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> > I would like to propose an additional keyword for @supports, "all".
> > When this is specified, all properties within the at-rule must be supported.
> >
> > for example:
> >
> > @supports all {
> > body { color: white; background-color: black; }
> > }
> >
> > is shorthand for:
> >
> > @supports (color:white) and (background-color:black) {
> > body { color: white; background-color: black; }
> > }
>
> While this appears useful in simple cases, I think any complex usage
> would either be difficult to maintain or very likely to lead to
> errors. For example, inside a large @supports all block, somebody
> might add some reasonable "progressive enhancement" that's known to
> be supported in only some browsers without noticing that it's in an
> @supports all block.
>
> I'm against adding it; it was an intentional part of the design of
> @supports that the author actually consider the condition.
To follow up on this, the working group agreed with the conclusion
that we don't want to add this feature.
The IRC log of the discussion (later to become minutes) is at
http://logs.csswg.org/irc.w3.org/css/?date=2013-02-06
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 22:01:59 UTC