- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:04:54 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 2012-09-20 12:48 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2012-09-20 14:51 +0200, Simon Sapin wrote: > > Le 20/09/2012 14:40, Boris Zbarsky a รฉcrit : > > >>Iโm thinking in particular of 6.2โs comment on values that might be > > >>valid in a spec but the UA "do not have a usable level of support for". > > >Sane UAs would treat that as "invalid". Of course historically not all > > >UAs are always sane.:( > > > > ยง6.2 seems to require such sanity in @supports for conformance, but > > it (or something) should do the same with declarations. > > The second sentence of section 6.2 [1] was intended to do exactly > this, where it says: > > # must not accept or support a declaration containing such a value > > Would it be clearer to change: > accept -> accept as a declaration > support -> <a href="#support-definition">support</a> > ? > > Or do you see another way to make it clearer? Actually, on further consideration, I merged the two sections and rewrote the first two paragraphs to make the whole thing clearer: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-conditional/#support-definition http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/ce28a0e42de9 -David -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ ๐
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 20:05:20 UTC