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

Le 14/11/2012 01:39, L. David Baron a écrit :
> It doesn't say that anything matching general_enclosed is invalid;
> it says that things that don't match the grammar are invalid.

You’re right of course. I shouldn’t do review specs at such hours, sorry :)

> 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".

Reading carefully now I think the current text is good enough, although 
this addition could not hurt.

Simon Sapin

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 07:38:22 UTC