W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [Syntax Level 3]

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:51:51 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120828235151.GA18682@crum.dbaron.org>
On Tuesday 2012-08-28 16:18 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 2012-08-28 17:00 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> >> On 8/28/12 3:37 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> >This isn't hard.  It is, however, inelegant and *useless*.  There is
> >> >absolutely no reason to allow this, and it would simplify parsers the
> >> >spec and parsers to disallow it.
> >>
> >> Actually, it would make the Gecko parser more complicated, because
> >> there would have to be a special "get the next token even if it's a
> >> comment" tokenizer mode or something.  Right now getting the next
> >> token can always skip over comments, which it wouldn't be able to do
> >> with your proposed change.
> >>
> >> So I don't think this is simpler for parsers, in general.  It might
> >> be simpler for _your_ particular idea of a parser, perhaps.
> >
> > I would implement it by making '!important' its own token type,
> > which would be simple enough, and I think indistinguishable.  (I
> > think it's also a simpler way of describing what Tab proposes than
> > Tab's way.  I still don't like it, though.)
> 
> That, unfortunately, requires nine-char lookahead in the tokenizer.
> The rest of CSS requires only three chars.  Is this acceptable?

I'm not sure.

But as I said, I'd rather not do this at all; I think we shouldn't
have ! in the toplevel of property values.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 23:52:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:59 GMT