W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2013

Re: another an+b issue (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2013-05-22)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:03:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB6MUQrFhSmBaFC07f2gq1dOynEX9mL2HwxdQm5KeQ56Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:32 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2013-05-29 14:44 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> I think the correct decision is to not care in the slightest, and let
>> whatever behavior falls out of the tokenizer just work.  This is one
>> of those things of so little importance that even the time you took to
>> write the email is more than it deserves.  ^_^
> I don't think that's quite true.
> You're going to write something in the spec that defines the
> behavior.  Somebody's eventually going to write tests for the
> behavior.  And the particular behavior that you specify might
> rule out some approaches to implementation in preference for other
> approaches.  So before we reimplement an+b, we actually want to
> ensure this sort of thing is stable, so that somebody bringing it up
> later doesn't force us to do a rewrite of the entire thing again.

I think my solution is stable to implementation approaches, as it's
based on the same concepts that the rest of CSS uses.  Of course, we
want to make sure the *definition* is going to be stable, but I hope
that'll settle itself shortly.

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 18:03:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:11 UTC