- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:03:00 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, Justin Rogers <justrog@microsoft.com>
On Tuesday 2008-06-10 18:54 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > For consistency in the Web platform I would like us to make the whitespace > definitions for HTML5 and CSS match. Right now, HTML5 defines the > following characters to be syntactic whitespace: > > U+0020 SPACE, U+0009 CHARACTER TABULATION (tab), U+000A LINE FEED (LF), > U+000B LINE TABULATION, U+000C FORM FEED (FF), and U+000D CARRIAGE > RETURN (CR) > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#space > > CSS2.1 defines the following characters to be syntactic whitespace: > > "space" (U+0020), "tab" (U+0009), "line feed" (U+000A), "carriage > return" (U+000D), and "form feed" (U+000C) > > The only difference appears to be the inclusion of U+000B in the > definition for HTML5. So, I was going to propose a change yesterday, but not a change this big. I was just going to propose changing the definition of whitespace for ~= selectors (and class selectors) to match HTML5, since those selectors are intended to match HTML. But now I've reconsidered. There's a *lot* of data in: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=437915 I'm strongly opposed to changing the CSS definition of whitespace that's been stable for ten years and is reliably implemented across browsers. See Gecko and Webkit behavior on: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=324389 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=324515 > HTML5's definition has a couple of minor advantages: it seems to be > closers to what IE7 does (at least for HTML), and it allows spaces to be > defined as the range of characters from U+0009 to U+000D plus U+0020, > rather than having it be five separate codepoints, which may allow for > some subtle optimisations. IE7's behavior is so wacky that it's nearly impossible to tell what it does in CSS, since its CSS parser recovers from errors very aggressively. > Would adding U+000B to the CSS white space definition be acceptable to the > CSSWG, or are there good reasons to exclude U+000B that should cause me to > remove it from the HTML5 definition? I think it should just be removed from the HTML5 definition. On Tuesday 2008-06-10 20:30 +0000, Linss, Peter wrote: > FWIW Gecko accepts U+000B as whitespace (and likely has since the > beginning). No it doesn't. See results on: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=324389 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=324515 -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 21:03:54 UTC