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

Re: [css-variables] Using $foo as the syntax for variables

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 02:43:01 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <iomlr75tolrups0tbfc6ijuq22fvfa47jm@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>Some further details - to handle $foo in the syntax, we'll either need
>to add a VAR token to the grammar (defined identically to HASH but
>with the $ character instead of #) or accept that variables show up in
>the tokenizer as a $ DELIM followed by an IDENT.  The latter is
>suboptimal, though - it allows comments between the $ and the foo,
>which sucks, and it means we have to deal with the "first character of
>an IDENT" detail, despite there being no ambiguity (HASH gets to avoid
>all that and just use "nmchar+").

Do you think CSS should have a core syntax that fully describes where
comments are allowed and that does not change every couple of months?

I am asking because you argued that comments between a sign and a num-
ber should be disallowed, now argue that comments between '$' and an
identifier should be disallowed, and I suspect you would also argue a-
gainst allowing comments, say, between the ':' and the identifier in a
pseudo-class selector, and everything else that you regard as "atomic"
construct, say, "!important". If the Working Group agrees, that would
likely mean that COMMENT tokens are treated as if they were whitespace
tokens. If you would like that, I think it would be good if you could
start a new thread to that end, and if the idea does not find support,
simply accept the tokenizer as it has been defined. It's after all part
of the one "we promise to never ever change this" section of CSS 2.1.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 00:43:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC