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. zwReceived on Friday, 7 August 2009 18:51:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC