W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [css-style-attr] SVG WG comments on CSS Styling Attributes Level 1

From: Peter Moulder <Peter.Moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:25:13 +1000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <20100825122513.GD25418@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:45:14AM -0700, fantasai wrote:
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> >
> >>>3) In section 3. Syntax and Parsing, the actual grammar for a style
> >>>attribute, following CSS2.1 chapter 4, appears to be
> >
> >>>declaration-list
> >>>   : C* S* C* declaration? C* [ ';' C* S* C* declaration? C*]* C*
> >>>   ;
> >
> >>>where C is the comment production. Is that correct? (Specifically, are
> >>>leading and trailing comments allowed, as well as ones between tokens?)
> >
> >f> I'll leave this question to Bert, who's our resident grammar expert.
> >
> >I haven't found any response from Bert on this.
> Peter and Zack responded instead. See the responses to your message:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0192.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0193.html

Regarding Chris' main interest as to whether leading and trailing comments are
allowed, Peter Linss replied to the effect that the spec says no but that he
"thinks" that the intention was for yes.  Given that the spec (as visible at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html) hasn't been changed on this point in
the six months since Peter wrote that, it looks like there isn't yet a
definitive answer.

Looking at http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1, it seems that issue 87 was to
change "between other tokens" to "outside other tokens" in an attempt to
clarify that they can occur at the start or end of a stylesheet, and this issue
is marked "closed" and "Proposal accepted (telcon 2008-12-10)"; so it's
surprising that I still see the old text in syndata.html today,
and the errata document mentions the resolution for the related issue 88
while I don't see any mention of the issue 87 resolution.

Did this change get lost somehow ?

Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 12:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:38 UTC