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

Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru> wrote:
> 
> S { P : url(-my-hack()); }
> 
> current token stream:
>    FUNCTION('url(') + FUNCTION('-my-hack(') + ')' + ')';
> syntactically correct && produce expected parsed tree.
> 
> new token stream:
>    BAD_URI('url(-my-hack') + '(' + ')' + ')';
> i miss something or what it supposed to be?

Yes, that's what is intended.  I don't see a problem.  With or without
my changes,

  S { P : url(-my-hack()); }

is a syntax error (specifically, a "malformed declaration"), so the
only thing that matters from CSS2.1's point of view is that error
recovery behaves the same. And it does. In the current parse, the two
close parens match the two FUNCTION tokens; with my changes, the first
')' matches the '(' and the second ')' matches the BAD_URI.  Either
way, we stop discarding tokens at the ;.

zw