On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Zack Weinberg wrote: > 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 wrong. currently it is _not_ syntax error but correct function(expr) (vendor extension), which should be recovered as unknown functional notation by unaware UA. your change turn it into syntactically incorrect construction, i.e. not a css. > 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 > > >Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 17:32:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC