- From: Bramus via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 20:42:40 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I’m seeing an uptick in requests from authors for this _(E.g. [[1]](https://ruhr.social/@nilsbinder/112721678680237204), [[2]](https://webperf.social/@ryantownsend/112722554445494335), [[3]](https://mastodon.social/@xro/113106213499516093), but there are more)_. One thing that dawned on me is that style queries is another special case here because of the `style()` function, which is not a prelude. Of the [three parsing forms proposed by Tab](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6966#issue-1108423935), the 2nd one would allow checking that. --- > Also, naively the first and second forms collide grammar-wise; we tell them apart by always invoking the first form when the only non-WS contents of the function are a single at-keyword token. What if we renamed that one to `at-rule-name()`? It’s fine to rename, as nothing of this is specced yet and nobody’s shipping this. I’m also fine with dropping the third proposed form here, and have authors test either only the at-rule’s name or an actual full rule. It would prevent that potential `;` syntax-collision -- GitHub Notification of comment by bramus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6966#issuecomment-2339051165 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 9 September 2024 20:42:41 UTC