- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:53:26 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday 2008-03-11 15:42 -0700, fantasai wrote: > I think it's fine to require white space around plus and minus signs in > calc() expressions, since that helps emphasize that they're lower precedence > than * and /. However, if we're requiring white space around these operators > in calc(), then we should at least allow white space around them in :nth-child(). I would prefer not to require white space around plus and minus signs inside calc(). I think we (the specification authors and implementors) may need to suffer a little pain to get that working sensibly, but I think authors will want to use it both ways. I think some authors will want to use spaces around plus and minus signs, and some won't; I suspect this depends significantly on what other languages those authors have experience with. I don't (yet) have strong preferences on how we do this. (And I haven't yet had a chance to read the proposals later in this thread in detail.) Possibilities include: * making :nth-child() and calc() handled as single tokens and then having a separate grammar for what is inside them * making the tokenizer stateful * making the parsing for what is inside :nth-child() and calc() give substantially different token streams the same semantics * restricting the units within dimensions to something more restrictive than identifier (forbidding "-"). (We'd need to be careful about vendor extension units here, although that might be possible with "_".) -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 06:53:59 UTC