- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:08:19 -0800
- To: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-international@w3.org, w3c-css-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
François Yergeau wrote to <mailto:www-international@w3.org>, <mailto:w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, <mailto:w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, and <mailto:www-style@w3.org> on 6 December 2003 in "Re: UTF-8 signature / BOM in CSS" (<mid:3FD23453.6000009@yergeau.com>): > [...] another way is to consider [the BOM] a character and to bring it > squarely in the grammar of a language, like I proposed recently for > CSS: > > EncodingDecl = [BOM][@charset=<foobar>] > > with the additional constraint that EncodingDecl must occur at the > start of the stylesheet. Is the BOM to be considered an identifier character? That's possible. Then an identifier consisting solely of one U+FEFF would be allowed at the beginning of a style sheet. But the codepoint U+FEFF could just as well be tokenized as its own type and grouped with "S" (space tokens) and comments as a separator of other tokens. This latter approach is not backwards compatible in a formal sense, but how many existing Cascading Style Sheets make use of U+FEFF in identifiers? About zero, I'd guess. -- Etan Wexler.
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 22:07:34 UTC