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 16:18:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCJWkEU6FzTTyj6d=5HT6pocnuiVPAAVLR7F9dHtEui7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2012-08-28 17:00 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 8/28/12 3:37 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> >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.
>> Actually, it would make the Gecko parser more complicated, because
>> there would have to be a special "get the next token even if it's a
>> comment" tokenizer mode or something.  Right now getting the next
>> token can always skip over comments, which it wouldn't be able to do
>> with your proposed change.
>> So I don't think this is simpler for parsers, in general.  It might
>> be simpler for _your_ particular idea of a parser, perhaps.
> I would implement it by making '!important' its own token type,
> which would be simple enough, and I think indistinguishable.  (I
> think it's also a simpler way of describing what Tab proposes than
> Tab's way.  I still don't like it, though.)

That, unfortunately, requires nine-char lookahead in the tokenizer.
The rest of CSS requires only three chars.  Is this acceptable?

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 23:19:00 UTC

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