- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:35:09 -0400
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<kanghaol@oupeng.com> wrote:
> (12/08/28 19:34), Brian Kardell wrote:
>> !/*really?*/important;
>>
>> Can't reps from google, ms, etc see if they can verify a single instance of
>> this in the wild? That is just too weird, I don't generally put things
>> beyond people, but I just honestly can't imagine someone doing that for
>> real...
>
> Can you quote relevant spec prose that is not acceptable to you? Do you
> find examples like
>
> data:text/html,<style>body/* some */:/* comments */:/* really?
> */before { content: "Yes!"; }
>
> unacceptable too? This is what CSS 2.1 + selectors3 call for and what
> browsers implement as far as I can tell.
>
I don't believe I said that it is unacceptable to me. It was
mentioned specifically in minutes (and previously on the list IIRC) as
being the one thing that was kind of a problem for the state machine
parser Tab was proposing. I am merely suggesting that it should be
possible to find a case or two where someone actually did that given
that we have representation from the big search engines - or it should
be taken off the table when considering the state machine version.
It's not even an argument for the state machine version - just that:
a) I think that particular objection isn't worth leaving on the table
while considering it b) It should be possible to get that data and
show that it is or isn't.
>
> Cheers,
> Kenny
> --
> Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
> Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 14:35:42 UTC