- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:47:08 -0600
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 23, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>
> 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. */
> }
>
Slots could also be pseudo-elements, e.g.,
::slot(sidebar) { … }
Then you wouldn't have an @-rule inside an @-rule.
dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:47:38 UTC