- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:39:39 -0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wednesday 2012-11-14 01:20 +0100, Simon Sapin wrote: > 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. It doesn't say that anything matching general_enclosed is invalid; it says that things that don't match the grammar are invalid. I can probably make this clearer by adding: (i.e., one that does not match this loose grammar which includes the general_enclosed production) between "grammar above" and "is invalid". -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 00:40:05 UTC