Created attachment 8694294 [details] foo.html This may or may not be a good idea, but I always prefer to err on the side of providing the user with more information. The attached page uses a rule that is scoped to a specific URL using @-moz-document. If you serve it from localhost:8000 (e.g. with "python -m SimpleHTTPServer") you will see that the rule takes effect and the paragraph background color becomes red. The inspector correctly shows the rule for <p>, but without any indication that it comes from a scoped rule. Clicking on the link correctly takes you to the right place in the style editor where you can see that it is indeed scoped. It doesn't seem absolutely necessary to indicate the scope of the rule in the rule view, but it can be useful to at least use the same hinting that we are / will be using for scoped styles (are we handling that case yet?).
I couldn't find any doc online, but finally got pointed to this MDN page: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@document Spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-conditional-20120911/#at-document Relevant www-style thread if you're interested (from 2004!): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Aug/0135 So far, only Gecko implements this (and it's still vendor-prefixed), and the spec isn't yet clear on whether this would ever apply to author stylesheets. So I doubt that this would be used in web content in the foreseeable future. It is however used in the browser css code in quite a few places. So this would probably be useful to browser developers. In reply to Panos Astithas [:past] from comment #0) > but it can be useful to at least use the same hinting > that we are / will be using for scoped styles (are we handling that case > yet?). No we're not, thanks for the reminder :) Just filed bug 1229692.
See Also: → bug 1229692
3 years ago
Triaging (filter on CLIMBING SHOES).
Priority: -- → P3
Whiteboard: [2016-GBT-Y] → [btpp-backlog][2016-GBT-Y]
We don't plan to support @-moz-document more generally now (just the hack in bug 1446470). Panos, should we WONTFIX this?
Yes, I don't think there is much value in implementing this.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 months ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.