- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:09:59 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 11/12/2012 18:50, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> 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).
I think we can do that for not(), but not for and() and or(). The latter
two require a left operator: they are not used in the same contexts as
negations and other functions.
--
Simon Sapin
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 22:10:25 UTC