W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [Syntax Level 3]

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:37:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAJwCFqM=z9ozOj8ssiYx6SqqmRC4qTOWScbgcD5CsZUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> I don't see why it's worth making this change.
> Does your parsing spec have a framework so inflexible that it can't
> describe the current CSS rules?  Why?  And if so, how can it
> possibly describe the rest of CSS?

It's nothing about flexibility.  I would thank you to read the spec
before implying that it can't address CSS at all. >_<

The point is that, as currently implemented, whenever I see a ! in a
rule, I need to push it into a substack, along with all subsequent
whitespace and comment tokens, until I see a token that's neither
whitespace nor a comment.  If it's an IDENT(important), I throw away
the stack and make the declaration important.  If it's anything else,
I insert the entire stack into the declaration's value.

This isn't hard.  It is, however, inelegant and *useless*.  There is
absolutely no reason to allow this, and it would simplify parsers the
spec and parsers to disallow it.  There shouldn't be any compat impact
to the change.

So, in the balance of concerns, this is moot for users and authors,
minor con for existing parsers if they allow it (because they'll have
to change) but minor bonus to new parsers (because it's simpler), and
a minor bonus to the spec (ditto).

I think this is pretty much even, so I'm going with my preference for
now, but if you feel strongly about the current behavior, we can
debate it.

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 19:38:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:20 UTC