W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shadow-parts] decide on forwarding micro-syntax for partmap

From: Ryosuke Niwa via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:42:44 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-376321775-1522100564-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> > We can continue to agree to disagree on that point.
> We really can't. I know how parsing code works; I've written bucket-loads of it. It's an insignificant addition to parsing.

Are you implying that I don't understand parsing? Like you, I've written many parsers in C/C++, and in particular, I'm very familiar with how `DOMTokenList`'s parser works, and adding this random syntax would make that implementation a significantly slower. Having any kind of multi-character token like `=>` is highly undesirable in implementing a high performance parser.

Anyhow, another thing we need to decide is how this attribute is represented in DOM. Presumably, we'd want to add `element.partMap` which doesn't simply return a string. If we're using DOMTokenList, then we'd hit the aforementioned performance issue. If we're using something else, then we better have a good argument for introducing a yet another DOM class, and design it along with the format for the content attribute.

GitHub Notification of comment by rniwa
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2411#issuecomment-376321775 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 21:42:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:26 UTC