- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:10:51 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wednesday 05 August 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:11:48 +0200, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote: > > 1) About omitting the media query from @media: > > > > CSS2 allows to omit the media from @import but not from @media. > > That is deliberate, because > > > > @import "foo" > > > > has an obvious meaning, while > > > > @media {<rules>} > > > > would be confusing and redundant. It would either mean the same > > as "<rules>" by itself or be ignored completely. > > > > If at all possible, I'd like to avoid (a) changing the CSS2 > > specification and (b) introducing syntax that is confusing. > > The reasoning for this is that <style media=""> or <link media=""> > implies all as well. As an aside (because it's about HTML, not CSS): If that's what HTML5 will say about them, then that's bad. :-( Currently they are in error, which I like much better. The most obvious reading for media="" is that the link applies to no media at all. And thus, if lines like this start appearing in HTML, many people will wonder if the author made a mistake. It's better to keep empty values illegal. (If HTML changes this, there will be an inconsistency between HTML and XML, unless http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet is also changed. It will be difficult to find out what breaks in that case.) Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 15:11:29 UTC