- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:50:39 -0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a proposed new grammar for @supports. It accepts the and(, or( and
> not( FUNCTION tokens as equivalent to an IDENT followed by '(', but should
> otherwise be equivalent.
We don't need to alter the grammar. We can just define not(), and(),
and or() functions that accept an appropriate subset of the supports
grammar, and say that they have their expected meaning (rather than
being always false, as functions are currently).
~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 17:51:33 UTC