- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:21:57 +0100
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Bert Bos wrote: > fantasai wrote: >> >> Actually, that's not the case. The "must ignore" part requires ignoring >> invalid at-rules inside @media blocks. It doesn't require ignoring @page >> inside @media specifically. That's indirectly required because *in CSS2.1* >> such rules are invalid. If a later specification says they are valid, then >> the "must ignore" sentence no longer applies. > > That's a very subtle interpretation :-) The juxtaposition of "invalid in > CSS 2.1" and "invalid at-rules [...] must be ignored" very strongly > suggests that rules that are invalid in CSS 2.1 must be ignored. I want > it to be clearer that rules that are invalid in 2.1 but valid in level 3 > need not be ignored. Updated proposal, then: we take #1 from yours: > 1) Change in 7.2.1 > > a set of rules (delimited by curly braces). > to > a set of statements (delimited by curly braces). Invalid statements > must be ignored per 4.1.7 "Rule sets, declaration blocks, and > selectors" and 4.2 "Rules for handling parsing errors." > > with the first "statements" hyperlinked to section 4.1.1. > > 2) Add at the end of 7.2.1: > > Nested @media rules are invalid in CSS 2.1. Change #2 to add instead At-rules inside @media are invalid in CSS2.1. to the end of 7.2.1. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 23:22:30 UTC