- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:32:37 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
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. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:33:01 UTC