W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-05

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:24:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7B11E0.3090103@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote:

> Did we really agree to the whole proposal? I think we talked about 
> comments only. The URLs weren't seen as a problem.

Yes we did. I was chairing that call and we did. We agreed on the
proposal and the proposal includes URLs. See

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0164.html

If the proposal raises an issue, we'll rediscuss it and resolve it.

> I don't think the comment parsing is a problem for a modern computer 
> either. If the thing you're parsing is indeed a style sheet with a 
> typo, rather than a stream of random bytes whose CSS parse tree doesn't 
> interest anybody anyway, then buffering the unclosed comment will maybe 
> cost you a few tens of kilobytes of memory. Not something to worry 
> about. (If you already don't have enough memory to store the style 
> sheet as a text string, you're unlikely to have enough for its DOM...)

Arf. Streams, chunks and bit-based values...

> I (reluctantly) agreed to the change, but I think I only agreed to 
> change the grammar of comments.

No. The strow poll was "do you accept the grammar change proposal?".
You replied "no but I won't block".

> That was also where some browsers we 
> tested differed from the spec. Most browsers did not exhibit the same 
> bug for unclosed URLs.

At least two browsers were giving exactly opposite results for test
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/att-0164/unterm-css.html

</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:25:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT