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

Re: [CSS21][Core grammar] Significant whitespace

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:18:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4F469123.2000002@kozea.fr>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 23/02/2012 17:28, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Simon Sapin<simon.sapin@kozea.fr>  wrote:
>> [...]
>> What about white space inside the value for a declaration? The 'value' field
>> for any property that I can find never lists white space. But is there a
>> design principle that I can rely on saying that white space in any property
>> value will never be significant like it is in selectors? (Other than for
>> separating tokens.)
>> If there is no such principle, white space needs to be handled while parsing
>> the value for each individual property.
> White-space inside of strings is obviously significant.

Yes. They parse as a single STRING token, opaque to the core parser. My 
question was about S tokens that appear in the grammar, like in:

value       : [ any | block | ATKEYWORD S* ]+;

(I’m looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#tokenization
Is it correct that css3-syntax should be ignored?)

> Otherwise,
> the only value of whitespace is for token-separation.
>> For example, there has been suggestions of accessing individual items in
>> "lists" like font-family or transforms.
>> If a value like "font-family[4]" becomes legal, will it be the same as
>> "font-family [4]" or will white space become significant?
> This would be a Core Grammar change, so don't worry about it.  A
> future-proof parser is one that correctly implements the
> error-handling rules, so encountering something like this in the
> future will just mean ignoring everything up until the next ; or }.

This is invalid for a property name but not for a value. I guess this 
specific example doesn’t work, but I can imagine new properties that 
takes values with a kind of indexing: something[index]

Another example: this is valid "background: url(foo) repeat #fff" but is 
this? "background: url(foo)repeat#fff"

Last one: "!important" is 2 tokens: DELIM then IDENT.
"! important" would be 3: DELIM, S then IDENT. I think only the former 
is valid in CSS 2.1 for priority, so the core parser (which does not 
know about !important) can not remove the S token.

Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 19:19:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC