- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:02:47 +0100
- To: "'Cameron McCormack'" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
± I think you're right that it does need more work if you ignore the unused ± fallback variable references when determining whether a variable is invalid. ± Also I'm not sure it's that useful; deliberately including cycles and then relying ± on fallback for them to resolve doesn't seem like a pattern that authors will ± need. I think making them all invalid is simpler and is powerful enough. ± ± (fremy may disagree about whether it's useful to allow it, though: ± https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=950497#c3.) Of course I do (I already did back then) but the issues on this group are ruled out by the majority principle ;-) Still, I don't understand this desire to detect loops early, the backtracking algorithm I propose for value resolution simply makes this unnecessary and has much better fallback semantics. But when I first proposed it, Tab had the same reaction as you: "that looks nice, so why not, but is it really worth the implementation cost?" and decided it wasn't, after all. I'm pretty sure it does, though, because it has a negligible footprint, but that's just my personal opinion =)
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 00:06:08 UTC