- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:10:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> In [#6966 (comment)](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6966#issuecomment-2339051165) I suggested to allow authors to either test for an at-rule’s name or an actual full at-rule. For what it's worth, allowing to test a full at-rule's syntax is also [what I suggested earlier](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5929#issuecomment-774475760) and [mentioned again in the discussion in #2463](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2463#issuecomment-813025456). This allows testing nested rules as well as at-rules only consisting of preludes. The main counter-argument back then was that it's verbose. Though like @bramus I believe it makes sense to allow both testing for the full rule _and_ offer a simpler way. Allowing to test for the full syntax ensures that every feature of at-rules _can_ be tested for. _In addition_ to that we can provide short forms to test them. Sebastian -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11117#issuecomment-2457005904 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2024 12:10:57 UTC