- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:34:16 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/06/2016 22:12, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I think you're just summarizing some pros/cons for the proposal as a > whole here, and not actually responding to the quoted text directly, > right? Sure. >> pros: - simple to read and understand >> - feature needed by users >> >> cons: - new constraints needed on rule insertion >> - new constraints needed on rule deletion > > What new constraints are needed? Are you talking about just in > editors? The OM doesn't need to do anything special; it can handle > stray @else just fine. Two consecutive rules in a valid sheet's OM: a @media followed by a @else. Through OM, @media is removed, stylesheet is now invalid because a standalone @else... > >> - @else standalone after deletion of @media is meaningless > > Why is this a con? Plenty of things in CSS are meaningless without > support of other things. "flex: 1" does nothing on an element that's > not a child of a "display: flex", for example. This is a direct > physical connection between the @else rule and the thing it needs to > be meaningful, which is a lot easier to handle than most of CSS's very > indirect connections. But "flex: 1" on an element that does not have "display: flex" does NOT make the sheet invalid ; a standalone @else does. >> - complexifies automated media queries management > > What is "automated MQ management"? Given an arbitrary document with arbitrary stylesheets, where should I insert a new MQ to see the style rules it contains have visual impact, ie. be the ones that win the cascade? Even for handwritten CSS, this is an enormous issue. >> - can't always express the @else case by a MQ > > Why is this a con? Turn a standalone @else in a valid @media. </Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 06:34:42 UTC