- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:13:18 -0800
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 22, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
> As if the widely varying syntax of at-constructs wasn’t confusing enough already. By now we probably have some at-rule for all of the following patterns:
>
> @foo;
> @foo bar;
> @foo {bar: baz;}
> @foo bar {baz: qux;}
> @foo {bar {baz: qux;}}
>
> You seem to want to add the bastard mix
>
> @foo bar {baz: qux; oof {rab: zab;}}
I have repeated said that I would not do it like that.
>>> Rules and rulesets shall not appear on the same syntactic level.
>>
>> Agreed WRT combining them at the same level, but it is not too late to change @page to not have bare declarations without a selector and braces.
>
> Huh? Do you want to turn
>
> @page {margin: 2cm;}
>
> into
>
> @page {@ {margin: 2cm;}}
>
> or what? That would mean changing CSS 2.1 – that’s a no-do.
Huh? Is @ a selector. I have posted my proposed syntax before with some different variations, but never like that. Here it is again:
@page {
body { margin: 2cm; columns:3; }
/* or maybe :root or :page instead of body */
p { font-size: 1.5 em; }
@slot sidebar { flow-from: side-flow; /* etc. */
}
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:13:56 UTC