Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-05

On Thursday 06 August 2009, Andrey Mikhalev wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, fantasai wrote:
> >  - RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for CSS2.1 Issue 129 (Backup in
> > Tokenizer) http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-129
>
> Objection.
> introduced new url tokenization contradicts core grammar prose, and
> backward compatibility parsing rules got broken on specification
> level.
>
> current grammar is perfectly crystal:
> invalid url recognized as function token and processed by parser.
> no reason for changes.

Did we really agree to the whole proposal? I think we talked about 
comments only. The URLs weren't seen as a problem.

I don't think the comment parsing is a problem for a modern computer 
either. If the thing you're parsing is indeed a style sheet with a 
typo, rather than a stream of random bytes whose CSS parse tree doesn't 
interest anybody anyway, then buffering the unclosed comment will maybe 
cost you a few tens of kilobytes of memory. Not something to worry 
about. (If you already don't have enough memory to store the style 
sheet as a text string, you're unlikely to have enough for its DOM...)

I (reluctantly) agreed to the change, but I think I only agreed to 
change the grammar of comments. That was also where some browsers we 
tested differed from the spec. Most browsers did not exhibit the same 
bug for unclosed URLs. (Which makes sense: Zack's change allows you to 
optimize parsing of comments by throwing away each character almost as 
soon as it is read, but the contents of a URI token obviously have to 
be buffered anyway. Zack's change doesn't gain you anything there.)



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 16:42:10 UTC