W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

RE: [CSS21] WD 4.3.4: comments vs. URIs

From: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:16:49 +0000
To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C340671BECD4364E8F9EBA27E8E231322DF8D13C@DF-M14-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG has addressed your concerns in the upcoming publication of the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. 

The CSSWG resolved to  add a note with your proposed text.

We hope this closes your issue.

Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution.

[1] http://w3.org/TR/CSS


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Peter Moulder
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 12:45 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: [CSS21] WD 4.3.4: comments vs. URIs
> 
> The existing note implies that the behaviour of comment-like substrings
> within URI tokens is not "normal tokenization behavior".
> 
> This creates confusion as to what "normal tokenization behavior" is.
> 
> My understanding of the text outside of this note is that it is not normal
> tokenization behaviour to allow a token within another token, and that it is
> normal tokenization behaviour for ‘url(/*hello)’ to be parsed as a single URI
> token (by longest match rules), and that it is (in contrast) normal tokenization
> behaviour for ‘u(/*hello)’ to be parsed as a FUNCTION token followed by a
> BAD_COMMENT token.
> 
> If that understanding is correct, then I suggest rewording to
> 
>   | Note that COMMENT tokens cannot occur within other tokens:
>   | thus, "url(/*x*/pic.png)" denotes the URI "/*x*/pic.png",
>   | not "pic.png".
> 
> pjrm.
> 

Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 16:17:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT