- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:57:52 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:27 AM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > ± This is correct - the actual grammar we use to parse CSS is a bastardized > ± version of Appendix G. David's written a bunch of tests which we fail and will > ± continue to do so until we fix our parser. > > Seems like I made a good guess ^_^ I suppose the plan is to get rid of those issues before releasing Custom Properties, right? Hope this can be solved in all browsers rather quickly. Do FireFox/Opera also have some non-standard CSS parsers? I do plan to try and rewrite our parser soon to match Syntax. I think FF has a better parser, though I don't know the details. Same with Opera. > ± Serialization is undefined. :/ > > It would be good to get this defined before CSS Custom Properties goes on (if not in a spec at least discussed among implementers just to avoid a situation where serialization is completely different in all browsers, that would be a mess). This is supposed to be something that happens in CSSOM. > ± Yes, we don't keep around the original text, for good reason. But JSCSSP's > ± serializer seems slightly wrong. Unfortunately, it's in a way that doesn't > ± matter for anything that isn't a custom property. ^_^ > > What do you think JSCSSP is doing slightly wrong exactly? Exactly what you said - inserting whitespace in the serialization that didn't appear in the original. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 16:58:40 UTC