- From: Geoffrey Sneddon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:55:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
>From @tabatkins, forwarded from <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2016JulSep/0162.html> (with permission!): > For the Syntax issue on the agenda, the differences in url() parsing were raised in the past (by dbaron I believe), and accepted. There was discussion about updating 2.1 to match, but my conclusion was that it would be extraordinarily difficult to do correctly; the error recovery isn't something that can be sanely described in terms of a grammar-based parsing strategy. > The tests that gsnedders raises are indeed wrong for Syntax; I reviewed them myself a few weeks ago at their request. -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsnedders Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/412#issuecomment-247386280 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2016 16:55:42 UTC