- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:54:30 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 13/02/14 19:16, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > That sentence makes no mention of it being invalid in CSS, and I'm > strongly against Selector syntax being officially valid only in some > contexts. Browser implementations might not ever *implement* this > selector, but if they do, it should be recognized in CSS as well. (It > just doesn't do anything.) "doesn't do" is too underspecified for me. We need to know if this is going to create a empty rule in the OM, a non-empty rule in the OM with specified values available, or nothing at all. I suspect there will be some resistance from browser vendors to create an OM instance if it's never used by the layout. I'd love to be proven wrong but honestly, I would completely understand the footprint argument. After all, we still don't store unknownrules or comments in the OM, and that explanation is a part - only a part but still - of the reason why we\ don't. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 18:54:55 UTC