Here is the .sass file:
/* Welcome to Compass.
*
* ie.sass
*
* Use this file to write IE specific override styles.
*
* Import this file using the following HTML or equivalent:
* <!--[if IE]>
* <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
* href="/stylesheets/ie.css" media="screen, projection" />
* <![endif]-->
*/
html {
font-size: 24px;
}
Here is the error generated by Koala:
/*
Error: Invalid CSS after "html ": expected selector, was "{"
on line 14 of /Users/johnlove/Sites/www.lovetoteach.dev/Web_Site_Storage/lovesongforever.com/coronavirus/Coronavirus_Support/sass_test/ie_test.sass
9: * <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
10: * href="/stylesheets/ie.css" media="screen, projection" />
11: * <![endif]-->
12: *\/
13:
14: html {
15:
16: }
I've made certain all properties are indented once. I have also eliminated the {} and trailing semi-colons.
Same error!
Why?
The answer is that even the resident sass compiler demands that the input sass file does not have either
{}or the trailing;So, when I eliminate both, the sass compiler registers success.
I thought either with or without
{}and with or without;was acceptable?I have answered my original question, only to replace it with a different question?
I finally forced myself to decide which I liked best. It is clear that I strongly prefer SASC because I strongly prefer the {} over the indented syntax of SASS. Don’t really care too much about semicolons, but I abhor relying on indentation.
So SASC wins also because just changing the file extension from .css to .sasc makes the newly named .sasc compile as a SASC file