Re: identifiers

Matthew Brealey wrote:

> --- Bill dehOra <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is this a legal identifier in CSS?:
> >
> >       :foo
> Yup.
>
> simple_selector
>   : element_name? [ HASH | class | attrib | pseudo ]* S*
>   ;
>
> where pseudo is:
> pseudo
>   : ':' [ IDENT | FUNCTION S* IDENT S* ')' ]
>   ;
>

No. It it NOT a legal identifier. It is a legal SELECTOR, which is composed of a ':' followed by an identifier. They are two
seperate tokens.

>
> and foo is a valid IDENT because it doesn't contain any ASCII characters
> other than a-z A-Z 0-9 and - and does not start with - or 0-9.
>
> Also relevant is:
>
> <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/conform.html#q1">
> A valid CSS2 style sheet must be written according to the grammar of CSS2.
> Furthermore, it must contain only at-rules, property names, and property
> values defined in this specification. An illegal (invalid) at-rule,
> property name, or property value is one that is not valid.
> </blockquote>
>
> This statement is ever so slightly ambiguous, but it means that _in
> addition to being grammatically correct, there is the additional
> constraint that at-rules, property names and values must be valid CSS-2.
>
> As a result since :foo, P {color: red} is grammatically correct, it should
> not be ignored (where the criterion for ignoring is:
>
> <q cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#q8">
> When a user agent can't parse the selector (i.e., it is not valid CSS2),
> it must ignore the {}-block as well.
> </q>
> )
> Conversely, :1foo, P {color: red} should be ignored because :1foo cannot
> be  parsed. Similarly :foo:cheese, P, although valid CSS-2, should be
> ignored by CSS-1 browsers.
>
> The only difficulty here is 'What is a CSS-1 browser?'.
> For example, Opera 3.6 supports * (albeit with very bad bugs), + (albeit
> with bugs affecting non-trivial cases), > (albeit with a trivial bug),
> multiple classes and @import with media (albeit with a bug). However, it
> doesn't support multiple pseudos - I feel it should probably ignore them
> because it does not support the relevant area of CSS but who knows for
> sure.
>
> =====
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com