Re: [css3-conditional] restructured forward-compatibility aspects of @supports grammar

Le 14/11/2012 00:25, L. David Baron a écrit :
> (I believe publication was waiting on me to review these edits; I've
> now done so, but others should now review the edits I've made.)

Hi,

The current ED has this paragraph:

> The above grammar is purposely very loose for forwards-compatibility
> reasons, since the general_enclosed production allows for substantial
> future extensibility. Any ‘@supports’ rule that does not parse
> according to the grammar above is invalid. Style sheets must not use
> such a rule and processors must ignore such a rule (including all of
> its contents).

The last statement (anything matching general_enclosed is invalid) seems 
to be in contradiction with the later statement that general_enclosed 
evaluates to false.

Cheers,
-- 
Simon Sapin