- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:05:23 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Le 26/09/2012 01:08, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> That's a reasonable point, I suppose. We could make a tiny tweak to
> the syntax and change supports_declaration_condition to:
>
> supports_declaration_condition
> : '(' S* core_declaration ')' S* | FUNCTION S* [any|unused]* ')' S*
> ;
>
> Then make it like MQ, and have unrecognized functions evaluate as
> false.
Yes, I had something like this in mind. As with colors, functions could
be the only way to extend the syntax.
> We'd probably also want negations of unknown functions to
> evaluate as false. Basically, only an "or" should be able to
> whitewash away the unrecognized-ness.
Maybe, but why? In terms of boolean logic, having "A" and "not A" both
evaluate to false is very strange to me. Is there a use case I’m missing?
--
Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 07:05:51 UTC