Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Zachary Weinberg wrote: >> Let me make sure I understand you: there is no URI token here, so >> the lexer should back up and tokenize this as >> >> FUNCTION[url(] STRING["picture.png"] ')' >> >> with the close quote and close paren provided by the "close open >> constructs" rule. This token sequence is an invalid argument to >> background-image:, so the rule is dropped. Correct? > > Whether it is dropped is an open issue the working group should resolve, > but yes, that is my interpretation. > >> If so I would argue that this is inconsistent with the treatment of >> other things that have the form of function application, e.g. >> >> <style>#foo { background-color: rgb(12,34,56</style> >> >> and the spec should be changed somehow, so that either both or >> neither of those are valid. > > The difference, if there is to be any, would be coming from URI being > a token on its own, unlike other functional notations. the question remains *why* URI is a token and why the definition for FUNCTION is not used instead, it would actually simplify the tokenizer as well. I always explained it to myself that if an URI is cut off it may be totally different than the value meant and so better be removed altogether (contrived examply: e.g. "url(some.gif.jpg)" could be cut e.g. "url(some.gif" and if the completion rule of FUNCTION would be used would end up "url(some.gif)"...) Does anyone knows the actual reasoning for URI being a token on itself? thanks ChristofReceived on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 18:09:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT