Re: css with regex

That seems like a pretty feasible thing to do. So, unless anyone else has
any objections, I'll go ahead and start making these changes on Monday?

- Laura

On 8/17/07, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>
>
> Well, I suppose that there is a complication in that if the CSS is not
> well-formed then stripping out the bits that don't count actually
> involves parsing the css so you strip out only the right bits.
>
> So I think the processing sequence would have to be:
>
> Parse as CSS 2.1
> Report only structural errors
> If no structural errors then strip out the @media and @import related
> bits
> Extract the referenced images and imports
> Parse as CSS level 1 [while finding a way to suppress checking of the
> remaining imported files]
>
> Or something like that.
> Jo
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> > checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Owen
> > Sent: 17 August 2007 18:50
> > To: Jo Rabin
> > Cc: Laura Holmes; public-mobileok-checker
> > Subject: Re: css with regex
> >
> > Nah, I don't think it's all that bad. You find some particular
> > patterns and cut out some bits of the document before parsing. It can
> > be done line by line, preserving line numbers, without any more
> > trouble than that. There should not be any change to how anything else
> > is printed. Basically we are manually processing @media before turning
> > other tools loose on it, which smooths out the wrinkle we've
> > introduced in the DDC, that CSS1 + @media is supported.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 8/17/07, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> > > If I had enough hair to raise, it would sound hair raising!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that it might work, but also think it raises the specter of
> > pretty
> > > printing the CSS just to report the line numbers, rather as we have
> > > discussed the same with reference to XHTML error reporting ...
>