- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:23:28 -0700
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Cc: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > (12/06/08 1:40), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Yup, Bjoern's right - considering ":nth-child(-n-1)" as an invalid >> selector is definitely wrong, unless the spec actually says that's >> invalid. > > (12/06/08 0:35), Lea Verou wrote: >> I think it's quite obvious that throwing an error on such cases is >> non-conforming, since the syntax is perfectly valid according to the >> grammar, > > The spec here is contradictory. The formal grammar says :nth-*() can't > have IDENT in it[1], while there's also a sentence > > # When a=1, or a=-1, the 1 may be omitted from the rule. > > . "-n-1" is an IDENT. > > > The spec can't really provide a guideline for this case. The formal grammar is multiple kinds of broken. It simply can't be relied on. It'll be fixed. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 20:24:22 UTC