- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 05:37:02 -0800 (PST)
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Etan Wexler wrote: >> >> The new syntax would simply be increasing the range of files that can be >> considered valid CSS, so I do not see a problem here. > > Calling random or malformed junk CSS is a problem. Why? > Perpetuating this junk by requiring user agents to accept it is a > problem. Why? >> I do _not_ want to see a repeat of the HTML Tag >> Soup nightmare repeated with CSS, and I don't want >> to go down the route of XML (parse or die). > > I have repeatedly lobbied for a third alternative which I recall David > Baron proposing originally. This alternative would tokenize the maximum > initial tokenizable sequence of characters and would parse the maximum > initial sequence of tokens matching the current 'stylesheet' production > (or equivalent). I don't see how this is any better than either the "parse or die" approach or the well defined "here's what to do with any set of tokens" approach. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 11:04:54 UTC