- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:20:14 -0700
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>, WebApps Working Group <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > On 2012-08-06 13:08, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: >> I think this is a very minor issue, and it has a simple workaround - >> mark it as undefined. However, if Lachlan doesn't feel like paying extra >> fee for versionning (what Anne calls "make work") or he thinks having >> "undefined"s in a spec significantly lowers the quality, I think that's >> fair enough and I suggest the way to move forward (if we really want to) >> is to consider my comment as retracted (let's just do so if Lachlan >> doesn't reply to this). > > > I'd rather find a way to address the issue. I've just been a bit busy with > other tasks for the last 2 weeks to look into this. > > I'd like feedback from implementers about how best to address the issue. > The options I can think of: > > 1. Disallow all comments within the selector for this API. Throw SyntaxError > when they are used. > 2. Allow comments, but define that unclosed comments should throw a > SyntaxError. > 3. Allow comments, define that unclosed comments are silently ignored. Officially, 2.1 defines Kenny's example of "html /*" as tokenizing into IDENT WS DELIM DELIM, which is then an invalid selector since nothing recognizes those two delims as part of Selector's syntax. This is compatible with Syntax's treatment, where it's recognized as a comment, but triggers a parse error. So, go with #2. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 16:21:06 UTC