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