- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:42:20 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday 2013-04-30 09:33 +1000, Peter Moulder wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:55:53AM +0200, Simon Sapin wrote: > > > The idea is to extend CSS 2.1 Appendix G, > > I wouldn't bother with Appendix G: for non-normative purposes, examples are > fine, whereas for normative purposes, it needs to be in terms of the > normatively defined core grammar in CSS 2.1 chapter 4 that implementors use > rather than the informal grammar of Appendix G. The point, though, is to say precisely what the set of legal syntax is. This is very different from the purpose of chapter 4, which is to specify error recovery rules. So describing the legal syntax should either be done using prose or using a normative grammar fragment that fits in the Appendix G grammar. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 23:42:47 UTC