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

RE: [CSS3] @font vs @background

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:48:47 +0000
To: "news@terrainformatica.com" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E10CC19FC@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Andrew Fedoniouk [mailto:news@terrainformatica.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 11:03 PM
> To: www-style
> Cc: Sylvain Galineau
> Subject: Re: [CSS3] @font vs @background


> "Parsing bug?" Where this comes from?
You stated this was a bug and it made it 'impossible to parse CSS...' ?
I would thus have expected this problem to manifest itself in the parsers 
of those browsers who implemented this module.

> This means that changes in CSS3 make in principle impossible
> to parse CSS into AST or the like anymore.

Given three shipping implementations, I'm not sure how impossibilities
'in principle' are relevant *in practice*.


> In its turn this creates problems for future language extensions.
> Making modern CSS preprocessors will be almost impossible with CSS3.

I don't know what 'almost impossible' means or how I can measure it here.

 
> I honestly believe that such critical piece of Web technologies as CSS
> should not be based on such "woodoo grammar".

Implementations are already out there and grammar and the number one request
of authors is to have CSS3 Fonts' voodoo grammar implemented everywhere.

Sorry I may not be qualified enough to understand the actual issue here....

Best,
S.
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 15:49:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:24 GMT