css3-conditional/Overview.src.html

changeset 6837
a8c932d37c77
parent 6832
fcea62f19491
child 6838
117c3502294d
     1.1 --- a/css3-conditional/Overview.src.html	Tue Oct 09 17:10:25 2012 -0700
     1.2 +++ b/css3-conditional/Overview.src.html	Tue Oct 09 17:30:03 2012 -0700
     1.3 @@ -90,6 +90,8 @@
     1.4    implementations are not found, it may be removed to advance the other
     1.5    features in this specification to Proposed Recommendation.</li>
     1.6  
     1.7 +  <li>The support for functions inside of ''@supports'' is at risk.</li>
     1.8 +
     1.9    <li>The '@document' rule is at risk; if interoperable
    1.10    implementations are not found, it may be removed to advance the other
    1.11    features in this specification to Proposed Recommendation.</li>
    1.12 @@ -399,7 +401,7 @@
    1.13    ;
    1.14  
    1.15  <dfn>supports_declaration_condition</dfn>
    1.16 -  : '(' S* core_declaration ')' S*
    1.17 +  : '(' S* core_declaration ')' S* | FUNCTION S* [any|unused]* ')'
    1.18    ;</pre>
    1.19  <p>in which <code>core_declaration</code> is the production
    1.20  <code>declaration</code> in the core syntax of CSS defined in <a
    1.21 @@ -418,12 +420,6 @@
    1.22  that do not meet the forward-compatible syntax for declarations cause
    1.23  the entire ''@supports'' rule to be ignored.</p>
    1.24  
    1.25 -<p class="issue">Is any further allowance for forward-compatible parsing
    1.26 -needed, for example, to allow additional features (such as, say,
    1.27 -selector tests) to be added to the ''@supports'' rule?  Or are these
    1.28 -forward-compatible parsing rules the best solution for such future
    1.29 -expansion anyway?</p>
    1.30 -
    1.31  <p>Each of these grammar terms is associated with a boolean result, as
    1.32  follows:</p>
    1.33  <dl>
    1.34 @@ -461,7 +457,7 @@
    1.35  <dt>supports_declaration_condition</dt>
    1.36  <dd>
    1.37    The result is whether the CSS processor <a
    1.38 -  href="#support-definition">supports</a> the declaration.
    1.39 +  href="#support-definition">supports</a> the declaration or function.
    1.40  </dd>
    1.41  </dl>
    1.42  
    1.43 @@ -598,6 +594,15 @@
    1.44  then it <strong>must not</strong>
    1.45  accept the declaration or claim support for it.</p>
    1.46  
    1.47 +<p>A CSS processor is considered to <i>support</i> a function 
    1.48 +(consisting of a function name and arguments)
    1.49 +if it accepts that function
    1.50 +(rather than discarding it as a parse error).
    1.51 +If a processor does not implement, with a usable level of support,
    1.52 +the value given,
    1.53 +then it <strong>must not</strong>
    1.54 +accept the function or claim support for it.</p>
    1.55 +
    1.56  <p>These rules (and the equivalence between them) allow
    1.57  authors to use fallback (either in the [[CSS1]] sense of declarations
    1.58  that are overridden by later declarations or with the new capabilities

mercurial