- 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