W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [mediaqueries] @media screen and (foo) or (baz)

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:04:49 +0100
Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <6FB6BC22-DF36-41FE-BEB0-676D088E76C7@rivoal.net>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

> On 24 Mar 2015, at 02:39, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Monday 2015-03-23 18:36 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
>> I think it's actually not that hard to specify; it just means
>> adding:
>>  <media-condition-without-or> = 
>>    <media-not> | <media-and> | <media> | <media-in-parens>
>> and then changing the existing production to:
>>  <media-query> = <media-condition>
>>                  | [ not | only ]? <media-type> [ and <media-condition-without-or> ]?
>> 
>> The <media-in-parens> takes care of allowing the or-ed conditions
>> inside of parentheses.
> 
> Er, I didn't delete enough text.  I meant adding:
>  <media-condition-without-or> = 
>    <media-not> | <media-and> | <media-in-parens>
> and then changing the existing production to:
>  <media-query> = <media-condition>
>                  | [ not | only ]? <media-type> [ and <media-condition-without-or> ]?


Change applied (together with relevant references in surrounding text).

I've left the railroad diagram in section 2 (http://dev.w3.org/csswg/mediaqueries/#media) as it was. It is just a high level overview of the syntax not including all the details, so I thought it was better to leave the high level intent clear. Also, that section states "Statements regarding media queries in this section assume the syntax section is followed.", so there's no normative contradiction.

 - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 09:05:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:30 UTC