- From: Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:32:17 +0400 (MSD)
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- cc: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
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