W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

RE: [css3-page] Is auto a page identifier or not?

From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:50:44 -0500
Message-ID: <79417AA297C63F4EA33B68AC105464A901A235B5@xboi22.boise.itc.hp.com>
To: ernestcline@mindspring.com
Cc: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>

Ernest wrote:
> 
> Whoa there!  I can see the reason (altho I disagree with it) 
> for rejecting "auto" as an identifier, but not ALL keywords.  
> Whether something that fits the production for an identifier 
> happens to be a keyword will depend upon what portions of CSS 
> it implements. Do you really want a standard that would 
> require an as yet undefined keyword from a future CSS 
> recommendation to be invalid?  That is sure to lead to 
> problems with interoperability.
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
> > ...  In keeping with "auto" 
> > being a polymorphic keyword
> > and not an identifier "@page auto" should be a syntax error in the 
> > same  way that "@page table-row" should be an error since auto or
> > table-row are keywords and not identifiers.
> >

From a grammar/syntax view keywords are not identifiers--they're separate
tokens. The grammar of the @page rule says that page names are identifiers
not keywords or identifiers.  I'm sensitive to the problem of foreseeing
future keywords.  Perhaps I'm being too strict and violating the CSS
resilience to new constructs.

I'm certainly willing to be quiet about what should happen if an @page
statement contains a keyword, e.g., @page table-row or @page display, etc.

-- Jim
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 11:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT