- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 07:06:51 +0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/04/07 6:33), Florian Rivoal wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:07:36 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
> I still prefer 2d (same thing, except the syntax error is cause at the
> expansion of
> the variable rather than its definition) for two reasons:
>
> 1) It deals with this:
> ul{ data-foo:!;data-bar:important;}
> li{ width: 0 data(foo) data(bar);}
Do we seriously want this to work? This is different from what I
imagine, but no strong opinion, provided that it is more or equivalently
implementable.
I think a common opinion earlier was that "!important" is not part of
the value.
> 2) you will have to parse the result of the expansion anyway, so it is a
> good time to detect syntax error. At the data-property definition stage,
> only lexing is needed, not parsing (except for the 2 last tokens, to see
> if they are "!" and "important"), which makes it at less natural place
> to do syntax checks.
This seems like a valid argument only if the implementation has clear
boundary between the lexing and parsing.
I would rather hope we exclude more DELIM at the data-property
definition stage so that authors don't get too creative and ask why the
following doesn't work:
div::before{
data-hash: # ;
color: data(hash)ffffff ;
}
when the debugging window shows that data-hash is inherited. It's
potentially harder to explain that HASH is a single token.
Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 23:07:19 UTC