- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:24:48 +0200
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote: > Did we really agree to the whole proposal? I think we talked about > comments only. The URLs weren't seen as a problem. Yes we did. I was chairing that call and we did. We agreed on the proposal and the proposal includes URLs. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0164.html If the proposal raises an issue, we'll rediscuss it and resolve it. > 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...) Arf. Streams, chunks and bit-based values... > I (reluctantly) agreed to the change, but I think I only agreed to > change the grammar of comments. No. The strow poll was "do you accept the grammar change proposal?". You replied "no but I won't block". > That was also where some browsers we > tested differed from the spec. Most browsers did not exhibit the same > bug for unclosed URLs. At least two browsers were giving exactly opposite results for test http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/att-0164/unterm-css.html </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:25:28 UTC