- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:25:13 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > The "not" keyword is inconsistent in whether the result is negated for > invalid things. > > "If it contains a <general-enclosed> child term, the result is false." > > not (123) -> true > > > "A media query that does not match the grammar in the previous section must > be replaced by not all during parsing." > > not (!) -> false These two are intended - <general-enclosed> is designed to handle our expected upgrade paths in the future, but we shouldn't even attempt to understand things which don't match the grammar at all. > "An unknown <media-type> must be treated as not matching." > > not unknown -> true > > > "An unknown <mf-name> or <mf-value>, or disallowed <mf-value>, must make the > entire <media-query> be replaced by not all." > > not (unknown) -> false > > > Is the above intended? This isn't really intended, and is inconsistent with our approach with <general-enclosed>, but it may be required for back-compat. I'll check on this. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 17:26:01 UTC