🖍 Allow @page CSS at-rule#17481
Conversation
e407e2a to
fad0ac8
Compare
|
Thanks @westonruter |
|
@westonruter Thanks for the contribution. We looked over the at-rules we found in a large sample of documents when making the initial list, so I suspect that this is just an oversight. I'd like @honeybadgerdontcare , who implemented the list to take a look but I see no problem. |
|
I was confused. This was something else. Yes, the at-rule list was defined here: I'm not sure who would be best to make this call. Probably @cramforce |
cramforce
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Would be great if you could also update https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/spec#@-rules
Done in e472360. |
|
Checking in — @cramforce , @Gregable , does anything else need to be done here in order to merge this PR? Do you have a sense of the timeline until this would become available? /cc @amedina |
|
Anything else needed here? |
|
Looks good to me. |
* Allow page CSS at-rule * Update docs to include `@page` among allowed CSS at-rules
* cl/219531121 Revision bump for ampproject#17481 * cl/219850294 Allow `http` scheme for links in email spec * cl/219866890 Revision bump for ampproject#19043 * cl/219867113 Revision bump for ampproject#18981 * cl/219877087 Make ESlint happy. * cl/219882876 Fix lint for ampproject#19096
When testing the WordPress AMP plugin with the Genesis Sample Theme, the validator was raising an error regrading an
@pageat-rule appearing in the CSS:See MDN docs on
@pagerule: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@pageThere doesn't seem to be any reason for why
@pageshould be excluded in AMP, other than it was perhaps not included since it is not a commonly-used rule. So this PR allows the rule in the AMP and AMP4EMAIL formats; I didn't include AMP4ADS as it didn't seem to make sense, but maybe it does.