- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:59:27 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:47 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Monday 2012-08-06 09:11 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:16 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >>> I'm inclined to agree with Cameron's original suggestion that >>> comments be preserved, because I don't see any other option that >>> preserves arbitrary syntax so that it can be re-parsed to get the >>> same result. >> >> I think my suggestion above satisfies this requirement. > > I don't see how it helps. > > In particular, I think it would probably be a good idea if > serialization rules we came up with for variables or @supports were > able to handle some of the contents being selectors rather than > property values -- and to do so correctly without knowing whether > the contents were selectors or property values. > > Otherwise I worry we'd have trouble extending these concepts to > cover selectors if we wanted to do so in the future. Actually, it'll still work even if we do make it apply to selectors in the future. The only problem is reserializing, which is easy to detect and insert an empty comment for, as I proposed. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 22:00:15 UTC