- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:40:38 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 14 January 2010, fantasai wrote: > On 01/13/2010 11:17 AM, Bert Bos wrote: > > The grammars in CSS 2.1 are bigger than this one and making sure > > that they are neither missing S tokens nor have redundant ones is > > tricky. That's not an issue in this much simpler draft. > > > > But there is some confusion between sections 3 and 4. Both claim to > > define the syntax. I think we should merge them into a single > > section. That could be like this: > > > > 3. Syntax and Parsing > > > > The value of the styling attribute must match the syntax of > > the contents of a CSS declaration block[link], i.e., > > > > declaration-list: S* declaration? [ ';' S* declaration? > > ]*; > > > > The interpreter must parse the styling attribute’s value using > > the same forward-compatible parsing rules that apply to parsing > > declaration block contents in a normal CSS style sheet. See chapter > > 4 of the CSS 2.1 specification. [CSS21] > > > > Note that because there is no open brace delimiting the > > declaration list in the CSS styling attribute syntax, a close brace > > (}) in the styling attribute's value does not terminate the style > > data: it is merely an invalid token. > > > > And then drop section 4. > > > > The link to appendix G is not needed, because there is already a > > link to chapter 4 and all symbols are defined there as well. > > > > I wonder if it is useful to mention comments. The reference to > > chapter 4 implies that comments can occur, but will all > > implementers notice that? A note like this might help: > > > > Note that comment tokens aren't shown in the grammar rule > > above, following the convention of chapter 4 of CSS 2.1. > > Ok, I've updated the spec: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-style-attr/#syntax > > How does that look? Looks good, but shouldn't the grammar rule be declaration-list : S* declaration? [ ';' S* declaration? ]* ; i.e., with two question marks? That's what CSS has and I think that's what we want here, too. Otherwise all of the following would be illegal: style="" style="; color: blue" style="color: blue;" style="color: blue;; margin: 1em" Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 18:41:10 UTC