- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:16:21 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Jens Meiert wrote: > "A CSS user agent that encounters an unrecognized at-rule must ignore the > whole of the at-rule and continue parsing after it." [1] The formulation is vague - not exactly the kind of language we should expect from _specifications_. I'm referring to the word "unrecognized". Does it mean an at-rule that a user agent's CSS parser does not actually recognize? In that case, is it acceptable that the parser recognizes constructs that do not conform to the CSS specification? That's what happens these days anyway. A browser might even _recognize_ a construct e.g. as an extension supported by other browsers and issue an error message or something, or support the extension on Sundays or according to user-settable settings. So "unrecognized" would not be the same as "supported". If, on the other hand, "unrecognized" is meant to refer to an at-rule that does not conform to the specification, the wording should be changed to say so. This means some verbal work, since "at-rule" is a concept in the specification and hence there is, strictly speaking, no at-rule that does not conform to the specification. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 07:16:55 UTC