W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2002

Re: CSS parser recovery

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:01:39 +0000 (GMT)
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212140957090.21095-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On 12/14/02 1:50 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> And I cannot see any way that that is desirable.
> 
> I did not say whether or not it is desirable.  It simply is.

I disagree. You have not shown any part of the spec that says that the
brace should be ignored, not any part of the spec that says that the
definition of "block" should be ignored for declaration blocks.

Meanwhile, there are multiple parts of the spec that go out of their way
to say that braces must match, and carefully give generic rules for
blocks.


>> Also, your way makes it impossible for us to extend CSS to allow blocks on
>> the property side, as in:
>> 
>>  h1 {
>>   font-size { minimum, preferred, maximum }: 9px, 16px, 72px;
>>  }
>> 
>> ...or whatever.
> 
> Correct.

Well given that my interpretation is _at least_ as valid as yours, and
arguably (IMHO) more valid, and in addition more flexible, I don't see any
reason to prefer your interpretation.

We should probably clarify the spec to explicitly state that the text that
says that blocks must be nested does indeed apply too all blocks (although
to be honest I didn't think that was debatable until today).

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 05:01:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:18 GMT