W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-conditional-3]: Inconsistent phrasing around placement of @import rules (#5697)

From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:10:00 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-736900734-1606867799-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-3/#contents-of talks about @import being disallowed inside conditional rules, but doesn't use the same must language as https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-3/#use. Unless there's something I'm missing about CSS editorial style, these should probably be consistent.

That is because it is inside an example.

The normative statement is the [definition of &lt;stylesheet>](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-syntax-3/#typedef-stylesheet).

The further explanation says that

> they can accept any rule that is normally allowed at the top-level of a stylesheet, and _not otherwise restricted_

There is then an example of something (`@import`) which _is_ further restricted. Examples are not normative. Although, this particular example uses the word MUST which is bad practice and should be reworded.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5697#issuecomment-736900734 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 00:10:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:23 UTC