- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:20:24 -0700
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday 2012-05-29 13:49 -0700, John Daggett wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > > As David has already pointed out, that section of the Core Grammar > > > is informative, not normative. You seem to be shaping the spec to > > > what's convenient to implement for your user agent. > > > > Careful where you point those accusations, John. If I were being > > convenient to our implementation, I'd have stuck to the "term" > > production in Appendix G, which is what our experimental > > implementation actually uses. > > Fine. You seem to be taking an approach based on a formal grammar > when CSS parsing rules are based on a combination of formal syntax and > parsing rules described in text. Using a formal grammar will be a > natural fit for some implementations, for others it won't. I don't > see that the <value> type is something that is intuitively clear to > authors nor do I think it's a great idea to be doing validation in two > places, once in the definition and again in the use. My understanding is that Tab's intent is that <value> refers to the value production in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#tokenization , which I think is the right thing here. It basically accepts any token stream that has balanced quotes, parentheses, brackets, and braces, and doesn't contain a semicolon, <!--, or --> at top level (i.e., not quoted, parethesized, etc.). (I'm not sure we want the <!-- and --> restrictions, though.) -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 22:20:52 UTC