Re: CSS discussion

On 8/7/07, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>
>  Hi Abel
>
>
>
> I think it makes sense to do what you suggest – the location of the CSS
> and where it is referenced from needs to be noted I think - per the earlier
> discussion on this list (and suddenly realizes that he didn't update the
> example moki document, as he was having fun being on vacation L).
>
>
>
> As to a full serialization – I think I support this idea, though like Sean
> I am worried about "where it will all end" and do we really need it?
>
>
>
> I think that it probably is worth while if only because we need to figure
> out at least two particular cases:
>
>
>
> 1. Valid CSS Level 2 selectors which are not valid CSS level 1 e.g.
>
> body > h1#potter + p.hogwarts a:visited.broomstick
>

We are not concerned with selectors right? how does the serialization help
this?

2. Values that are inappropriate to the property in question
>
> e.g. width: -1px
>
> e.g. width: italic
>
This is more a question of validation, which is indeed important, rather
than the two CSS tests themselves. But again what does building a tree
representation out of this do to make things easier, per se?

It may be that we want to check and warn for other things too. E.g. we might
> want to check that the selectors actually refer to valid HTML elements. All
> of which says to me that it would be better if we got on with a full
> serliazation.
>

Nothing about validation requires a DOM-like model. I think it's well out of
scope right now to check elements vs. selectors, but anyway, CSS selectors
don't actually have to be used right? I can define a foo class that's never
referenced?


This one I feel strongly about. This is creeping far out of scope -- for
version 1.0. It is all good, but I do not believe it's a good idea to put
energy into this while tests remain unwritten. This is a whole project unto
itself.

Sean