- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:49:32 -0700
- To: "public-houdini@w3.org" <public-houdini@w3.org>
So, css-parser is a prerequisite to doing most of the "extend existing CSS constructs" things: custom at-rules, custom functions, custom properties, they all need to be able to receive CSS and reason about it. Forcing everyone to parse strings is dumb; we'll just get inconsistent and buggy behavior out of apps. But standardizing parsing means exposing things like our token structure. We've previously resisted doing this, so we could change our tokens, and we've actually done that (changed our tokens). Are we okay with more or less freezing our token structure now? Alternately, we could expose parsing solely "by request". Give strings by default, but you can specify a grammar ahead of time and we can attempt to parse it according to that. This gives us a slightly higher-level API that we have stronger control over; we could still change the underlying CSS parser without necessarily affecting the exposed grammar. (This is similar to what Ian talked about two weeks ago in "An incremental approach Typed & Custom Properties".) This also gives authors something slightly more convenient - they can ask for a <color> and actually get something useful, rather than having to handle "a hash-token, or a keyword, or a function" and have to verify and convert them all into a common type of object. Thoughts? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 22:50:21 UTC