- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:51:06 -0700
- To: Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru>, www-style@w3.org
Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru> wrote:
> 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.
You are making a distinction without a difference. There is no CSS2.1
property for which "url(-my-hack())" is a well-formed value, so the
declaration will be discarded, before and after my proposal.
Anything that triggers ยง4 error recovery is a syntax error, is my way
of thinking about it.
If some subsequent CSS module wishes to add new variations on url(), we
can worry about it then. I earnestly hope this never happens.
zw
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 18:51:51 UTC