- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:05:49 -0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > Le 03/02/2013 15:13, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> Sigh, damn comments. >> >> I'll have to see if the rest of the WG is okay with ignoring this. >> >> It might not be too hard to work around this, though. If I export the >> list of token pairs that need to have comments inserted when >> serializing, > > Isn’t that what you have here? > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-syntax/#serialization Yes. >> I can invoke that here, and just insert whitespace >> instead. That'll still possible be wrong, though - putting a comment >> between the step and the "n" will fail. > > Is it supposed to? AFAICT no-one knows, so there’s probably some room to > pick whatever is more convenient to spec. Yeah, it's undefined - the rules are that comments are allowed between tokens, but the official definition of an+b currently uses a different tokenizer definition. Of course, the official definition's tokenizer is also *wrong* (it violates the longest-match rule), so shrug. We'll come up with something. >> Switching to a pure token-based parsing is the way to fix that for >> good, but it's so complicated. :/ It's not hard to write down, it's >> just*long* and*annoying*. > > You’d need to change back the tokenizer to emit comment tokens. > > Anyway, I gave this a try back in June (see attachment) > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jun/0159.html > > What I got then is probably wrong in many corner cases. Ooh, I missed this. If we decide that my string-based reparsing is inadequate, I'll go over this to provide a start for a token-based approach. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 00:06:36 UTC