- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:35:48 -0700
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Bert Bos wrote: > >> Revised proposal: >> State in 7.2.1 that "At-rules inside @media are invalid in >> CSS2.1. Invalid at-rules inside @media blocks must be ignored >> per 4.2 Rules for handling parsing errors." > > The "must ignore" part makes CSS3 UAs non-conformant with CSS 2.1. If > all UAs implement Paged Media tomorrow (as we want them to do...) then > we can never make a Rec for CSS 2.1 anymore, because there will be no > UA that ignores @page inside @media, as required by this proposal. 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. > So here is my cleaned-up version of Fantasai's proposal. Change in > 7.2.1: > > a set of rules (delimited by curly braces). > to > a set of statements (delimited by curly braces). CSS 2.1 UAs may > ignore at-rules inside @media blocks. Invalid at-rules must be > ignored per 4.2 Rules for handling parsing errors. > > "Statements" may be hyperlinked to section 4.1.1, for extra clarity. I like the change from "rules" to "statements". But I'm not as happy with the "may ignore". What does it mean to not ignore? Are @page inside @media and nested @media valid CSS2.1 then? ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 20:36:39 UTC