> Note that I've adjusted my internal OM to better match the JSON > serialization, because I preferred the names used there. Avoiding two different naming schemes is a good way to keep me from making typos, that's appreciated ^_^ > Regarding CSS parsers, my implementation had better be the best and > most complete parser, or else my CSS parsing spec is incomplete. Let's hope so, indeed ;-) I guess what Brian meant is that some people, like Daniel, added to their parser new features that are not in CSS right now, or that some may have tweaked the parser performance a little more. > Note > that my parser is a bit behind the spec right now - I spent this > afternoon bring the tokenizer up to speed with recent spec changes, > but I haven't adjusted the parser part yet. That's okay. FWIW, I'm not going to focus on CSS processing at the moment anyway, because I prefer to keep focused on a small number of projects and getting things done than pursuing too many objectives and getting lost. I've made some progress on understanding what getter/setter/creator/deleter really meant in WebIDL and I'm confident it's possible to emulate getter/setter/creator in ECMAScript 6 (if proxies don't get delayed to ES7). The guys at es-discuss provided good help on this. The case of "deleter" is more problematic because it won't be able to intercept all delete calls, only those that are the less useful, but I'm confident it won't be that of an issue as getter & co aren't used that frequently, and delete is used even less frequently.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 10:57:47 UTC