- From: Guillaume via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 20:17:03 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> What bad situation would arise if we don't do this? Accidentally linkage to an obsolete dfn? It would simply have been a convenience to prevent `@webref/css` from including "orphan" grammar entities. If some level of a spec defines `@rule <foo> ;` and another level `@rule <bar> ;`, `@webref/css` will include a definition for `@rule`, `<foo>`, `<bar>`, with both `<foo>` and `<bar>` possibly defined with `"for": ["@rule"]`. So a human intervention is needed to determine that `<foo>` is obsolete and does not need to be documented on MDN, for example. `<border-style>`, `<border-width>`, `<margin-width>`, `<padding-width>`, `<shape>`, are the only "orphan" types I know of, and they are all defined in CSS 2. That said, I can survive adding an exclusion of `<import-conditions>`. =) > That amounts to a normative change that goes beyond this PR? Granted, these things should be consistent, but we don't have a resolution right now to change css-conditional-5 (`@when`, specifically). I had not suspected these differences could be intentional when I wrote this comment, indeed. w3c/csswg-drafts#12903 already exists for this. -- GitHub Notification of comment by cdoublev Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/11237#issuecomment-4100745496 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 20 March 2026 20:17:04 UTC