@nchevobbe let me know if it fully covers the feature

Preview URLs (2 pages)

• /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Guides/Containment/Container_size_and_style_queries
• /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/At-rules/@container

Flaws (11)

Note! 1 document with no flaws that don't need to be listed. 🎉

Found an unexpected or unresolvable flaw? Please report it here.

URL: /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/At-rules/@container
Title: @container CSS at-rule
Flaw count: 11

• macros:
  • Macro csssyntax produces link /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/size-feature which doesn't resolve
  • Macro csssyntax produces link /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/scroll-state-feature which doesn't resolve
  • Macro csssyntax produces link /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/function-token which doesn't resolve
  • Macro csssyntax produces link /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/any-value which doesn't resolve
  • Macro csssyntax produces link /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/any-value which doesn't resolve
  • and 6 more flaws omitted

(comment last updated: 2026-05-22 00:06:29)

@nchevobbe let me know if it fully covers the feature

I think so, at least it definitely helps understanding the differences
Maybe @dshin-moz can give it a read too to make sure it's all good :)

Yeah, this looks good - Only nitpick is the naming of the equality syntax. At least to me, at a glance, style(--n = 3) looks more like the equality syntax than style(--n: 3).

Technically it's <style-feature-plain> 1, so maybe a "plain match syntax," i.e. style(--n: 3) vs. "range equality syntax," a subset of the <style-range> syntax 2, i.e. style(--n = 3)?

@dshin-moz good point! It’s much clearer with plain vs range now and directly attached to the spec. Thanks!

@hamishwillee I would wait for @dletorey’s PR to be merged (it’s more time-sensitive) and get back to it then, addressing your feedback, etc.

@hamishwillee I would wait for @dletorey’s PR to be merged (it’s more time-sensitive) and get back to it then, addressing your feedback, etc.

@pepelsbey No, I wouldn't merge that PR until it looks far more like this one. It isn't "minimally viable" whereas this nearly is.

The most efficient way forward is to get this in with minor tweaks, and then Dave could graft his example on top.

@hamishwillee thank you for the feedback! I think I addressed most of your concerns. Let me know if it got better.