- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:07:44 +0900
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
> On 26 Nov 2015, at 03:19, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > > What is the interaction between > > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional/#at-supports > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional/#the-css-interface > > ...and... > > https://quirks.spec.whatwg.org/#the-hashless-hex-color-quirk > https://quirks.spec.whatwg.org/#the-unitless-length-quirk > > Testing in http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/3765 it appears that in Blink/WebKit/Gecko apply the quirks in @supports, but not in CSS.supports(). Presto doesn't apply the quirks to @supports and doesn't have CSS.supports(). I haven't checked IE/Edge. I suggest we specify what Blink/WebKit/Gecko do. I did the implementation in Presto, and not applying the quirks was not intentional. There was no rationale for it, only oversight. I agree that @supports should match what the browser actually consumes, and if it supports quirky things, then @supports should reflect that. Btw, why not do the same in CSS.supports()? Any particular reason there, or are you just proposing aligning with implementations? - Florian
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2015 01:08:15 UTC