- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:12:01 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 30/03/2013 00:30, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > >>> The reference to <ident> is misleading, the author- >>> defined part of the name would not be a token on its own; say something >>> like 'A custom property is any property whose name starts with "var-"' >>> instead. >> >> Nope, the part after "var-" needs to conform to the <ident> grammar, >> so you can use it as a bare value in the var() function. > > Does it really? What matters is that the parsed value of the identifiers > match, right? It shouldn’t matter if they use different escaping. > > For example, var-1st is a valid property name, but 1st is not an <ident>. > You can still write an ident with the same parsed value by escaping the > digit: var(\31st) > > Sure, we might recommend to authors not to do that because it’s ugly. But > there is no reason to require UAs to disallow it. > > Actually, detecting var-1st vs. var-\31st would require a special case in > the tokenizer. We did that for ID selectors for legacy reasons[1], but let’s > not repeat that pattern. Convincing. I've stolen your suggested text and relaxed the requirement. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 16:12:48 UTC