Update @import behavior per CSSWG resolution - #137
Closed
dandclark wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Author
|
This was handled in w3c/csswg-drafts#6411. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Last year the CSSWG resolved on the following changes for constructable stylesheets' treatment of
@import:@importrule will throw a SyntaxError instead of a NotAllowedError.@importrules, and do not throw an exception when encountering one.This PR updates the spec to reflect these changes.
In this change, the 'ignoring' of
@imports for replace()/replaceSync() is achieved by removing the rules from the list produced by the parser. This is a little odd; it could be more natural to have the parser skip them when parsing a constructed stylesheet. But since this document is not yet merged into any other CSS spec it's difficult to plumb that behavior through to the parser. So, the rules are instead removed after-the-fact, which should produce the same result.Closes #123.
Preview | Diff