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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-variables][css-conditional] is trailing semicolon valid in @supports conditions (#3171)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:10:46 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-714521664-1603375844-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `is trailing semicolon valid in @supports conditions`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;gregwhitworth> Topic: is trailing semicolon valid in @supports conditions<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3171<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: so the spec for conditionals is fairly clear, grammar doesn't allow semicolon at the end<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%3E%0A%40supports%20(background%3A%20green)%20%7B%0A%20body%20%7B%20background%3A%20green%3B%20%7D%0A%7D%0A%40supports%20(background%3A%20red%3B)%20%7B%0A%20body%20%7B%20background%3A%20red%3B%20%7D%0A%7D%0A%3C%2Fstyle%3E<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: browsers match, at least Chrome &amp; FF - only question dbaron wanted the semicolon to be valid due to copy/paste and leaving it in there<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: should we change the grammar?<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: currently everyone is consistent<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> jensimmons: I did this yesterday actually<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> florian: this is a property where consistent behavior is very important<br>
&lt;bkardell_> q+<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> florian: yesterday it didn't work but at least it didn't work everywhere<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: yeat, WPT would show that and the change is relatively small<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: people do have to prioritize it<br>
&lt;astearns> ack bkardell_<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> bkardell_: agree with florian concerns because we have interop. I don't think we've had that kind of change that people would rely on<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> bkardell_: there would be a period of several years of chaos<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> bkardell_: for authors and it will boil down to users and users don't care about this and this is maybe saving devs a few minutes to learn it<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1 to no change<br>
&lt;emilio_> +1 for that, no point in creating a compat issue where there's none<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: sounds like the room is leaning towards No Change<br>
&lt;huijing> i also think the as-is is good<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> jensimmons: I'm ok with it, people need to learn it; or re-learn it<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> florian: given a time-machine I'd have a different opinion<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> Resolved: Close this issue no change<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3171#issuecomment-714521664 using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2020 14:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:20 UTC