- From: Gordon P. Hemsley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 20:36:18 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> A value definition does not always represent the full production's grammar: it may be completed with some rules written in prose, like the channel keywords and the legacy `rgb()` whose value definition (w/ comma-separated args) is defined in CSS Color 4 (but is not included as an alternation in the "modern" value definition of `rgb()`). Ah, I hadn't registered that. You're right. > The motivation is to have a value definition that is less complex and whose parsing is certainly less complex to implement/run. It seems to me that this approach would actually make things _more_ complex to implement, as one has to interpolate the prose instructions into the grammar parsing. I suspect the dividing line actually more closely approaches author instructions vs. implementer requirements, an issue that is significantly more complex for areas having longer-standing legacy behavior (like what e.g. HTML has to handle). Still, I would argue that parsing requirements (as opposed to, say, implementation details) should be defined in a formal grammar rather than in prose, even if that means having a separate definition of the legacy rules, à la many mature IETF RFCs. -- GitHub Notification of comment by GPHemsley Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7721#issuecomment-1243038287 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 11 September 2022 20:36:20 UTC