- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 22:49:24 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
No, I didn't intend to modify the example. I was just quickly removing some unnecessary &s, to avoid implying they're required, and got a little overzealous. I've fixed this properly. > ironically this also illustrates that the shift to proposal 3 also makes it easier to make small mistakes :D Not in particular; you won't normally be taking code written for a "required to start with &" syntax and switching it back to an implicit &. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/7966#issuecomment-1294206922 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2022 22:49:26 UTC