- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 22:25:42 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:54:57 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Friday 2012-11-02 22:31 +0100, Florian Rivoal wrote: >> I've checked the new version of @supports, and although I agree with >> the intent, I've found a few things to nitpick about. > > I believe that all the issues you raised were fixed [...] > > I'd appreciate your confirmation if you agree these issues are > fixed, or an explanation of what you think ought to be changed if > you think they're not. Thanks for pinging me. I have now reviewed the changes, and I agree that they fully address the issues I raised. I have taken this opportunity to review the entire draft, and it looks very good to me. I only have two comments on the whole document: * There is one issue left in the draft: "Issue 1: This needs to specify what to do if rule is the empty string, if it contains more than one CSS rule, or if it contains garbage after a valid rule." Unless there are backward compatibility concerns, I would say we should specify that under such conditions SYNTAX_ERR must be thrown. I am not strongly attached to this if someone has good reasons to prefer something else, but I think it is a simple and natural answer to the question. * "The conditionText attribute, on getting, must return the result of serializing the associated condition." We had a discussion at the San Diego face to face about what the serialization of the supports_rule should look like, but I cannot find the conclusion we had reached in this draft. Has it been written into another document? Is it voluntarily left unspecified at the moment? I would not have a problem with this draft moving forward without serialization being specified, or with reopening the question, but since we had discussed it, I wonder where it went. Best Regards, - Florian
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 21:26:08 UTC