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

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
>
>
>