- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:09:43 +0800
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Le 30/05/2013 15:07, John Daggett a écrit : > The problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't > differentiate between nuggets of syntax that only live within a single > given @-rule and *not* contain other rules (e.g. @font-feature-values) > and rules intended to contain other rules such as @supports or @media. I don’t see this as a problem. Each at-rule defines in what contexts it is allowed or not. For example @import is only allowed after any @charset "rule", and before any other rules such as style rules. > This applies to all @-rules with no defined OM. Look at css-page, > @page is defined with a slew of @-rule thingies, each of which would > seem to require a new CSSRule subtype and a clear OM definition, yet > there's no such definition. We discussed this in the WG a few months ago. There is good consensus that OM for margin rules is needed, and rough consensus on how to do it. I just haven’t done the edits yet. (And none of my three co-editors beat me to it.) The idea is that CSSPageRule would inherit from CSSGroupingRule in addition to providing a CSSStyleDeclaration style attribute. The margin rules inside @page would be represented by new sub-types of CSSRule. I’m not sure yet if we should define 16 different types (and corresponding constants) or just one with an at_keyword or similar attribute. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 08:10:16 UTC