- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:42:12 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 23/03/10 21:50, L. David Baron a écrit : > I think the general precedent in CSS has been that comments are > allowed anywhere between tokens. (It's not a very good strategy for > building an object model that contains comments, which is required > for editing, but it's the one we have.) That's actually somewhat > hard-coded into our tokenizer. > > I think Gecko allows comments in other places inside :nth-child(), > (including everywhere that whitespace is allowed) but not in the one > above, since we only accept the '2n' as a dimension token (though we > could change that). Side note independant of my proposal, Gecko is buggy if comments are allowed inside 2n+1. > I'm a little bit uncomfortable disallowing comments in places where > we allow whitespace. > > > It's probably somewhat easier for us to switch for allowing comments > in more places (i.e., accepting the example above) than to switch to > allowing them in fewer, but it's probably doable with some amount of > work. I find it really ugly to allow comments here but I am more concerned by the complexity of the parsing :nth-child( 3 /* this is 3 because blabla */ n /* multiplicator */ + /* we want the 1, 4, 7, ... */ 1 ) :nth-child ( - /* blabla */ 2n+10 ) Anyway, whatever the conclusion, I can live with it. But we needed to clarify this. We really never thought of comments inside an+b. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 21:42:42 UTC