- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:50:27 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 21/06/2016 12:48, Simon Pieters wrote:
ntainment makes sense in the OM but not in the syntax. Can't we
> have it both ways?
>
> Given this stylesheet:
>
> @media (...) { ... }
> @else { ... }
>
> ...the OM contains only one CSSMediaRule, no sibling. Instead that rule
> has a property .else that points to the CSSElseRule (which can itself
> have further .else, and also a property to point to its owner). So if
> you remove the @media rule in the OM, the @else rule is removed with it.
>
> I suppose it is a bit confusing to have the syntax and OM have different
> structure, but I thought I'd bring it up as a possible way forward.
That could be a workable compromise for one part of my concerns, yes.
Thanks, Simon.
I'm still not convinced at all the complexification of MQs created
by @else is needed.
</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 11:50:54 UTC