- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:31:16 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2012-09-27 09:35 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: >> > Le 27/09/2012 18:19, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> >> However, I can see the value in being able to explicitly test for >> >> "does the browser understand this". So, I may be amenable to just >> >> treating the function itself as false, and letting negations work as >> >> normal. >> > >> > Yes this is what I meant. A function the browser does not know (that is, any >> > function in level 1) would be false, not indeterminate. >> > >> > But now I see why indeterminate could be more meaningful: a browser might >> > not understand selector(foo) in @supports, but actually support the selector >> > foo. But I still think that "not selector(foo)" should be true in this case, >> > as there is no harm in using a fallback that avoids a feature even though >> > the feature is supported. >> >> That's a good argument. Okay, I give. >> >> Hey, rest of the WG (especially dbaron)! What do you think about this: >> >> Amend the grammar of supports_condition to also accept arbitrary >> functions, and treat unknown functions (right now, all of them) as >> false. > > This works for me. I think we should mark it at-risk, though, given > the lateness of the addition; I'd like the ability to reconsider > without having to go through another last call. > > (We could also consider introducing a single function, to test > whether a function is supported. Thus > supports-function(supports-function) would be true and > supports-function() with any other argument would be false.) Cool, I've added it now, and added an entry to the at-risk list for it. Are you okay with the suggested resolutions to the other remaining issues? (Punting @import improvements to the next level, dropping the issue about Fonts not defining its grammar, and punting @document entirely to level 4.) ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 00:44:58 UTC