- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:26:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- cc: www-style@w3.org, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, fantasai wrote:
> Yves Lafon wrote:
>> So the text and the grammar are not synchronized.
>>
>> Shouldn't selector use a production capturing those requirements,
>> (something along the line of HASHIDENT = '#' IDENT) instead of HASH?
>
> The grammar in general is a lot more lax than what CSS2.1 requires.
> Bert will have to give you the long explanation, syntax isn't my
> specialty. :)
I completely agree that a grammar is not the place to enforce all the
special cases of the specification, there are constraints that can't
be expressed in the grammar, but in this specific case, I can't imagine a
selector being a HASH and not a HASHIDENT (as specified by '#' IDENT )
If HASHIDENT is not needed, then IDENT is not needed, and we should move
all the IDENT to NAME and put the constraint in the text of the spec :)
Cheers,
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 10:27:09 UTC