- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:37:38 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Le 26/09/2012 19:33, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> I agree that it's strange, but you simply*don't know* whether it
> should be true or not. My suggested solution is kinda similar to
> NaN-poisoning, where once a NaN is introduced, it remains NaN until
> you do something special with it. This just wipes out the entire
> unknown clause.
I see the comparison, but I still believe we should not do this. For
example:
@supports foo(bar) { /* The new-and-shiny thing */ }
@supports not foo(bar) { /* The almost-as-good CSS 2.1 fallback */ }
The expectation here is that one of the two at-rules will apply. With
your suggestion none of them apply, and we get unstyled content. Are
there more complex cases where the author would actually want a
"NaN-like" value for unknown functions in @supports?
--
Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 07:38:07 UTC