Re: [css-syntax] <an+b> grammar

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> I’m not convinced that it’s that hard to make the grammar effectively the
> same as what Selectors 3 defines, even if it means handling whitespace
> tokens explicitly. Also, I remember that we should give priority to making
> things convenient to users first, then authors, then implementers, and only
> then spec editors (although I don’t have the reference at hand.)
>
> That said, I’m not opposed to this change, although I’d prefer something
> where '+' and '-' behave the same, as David says.

Like I said, it's not hard to create *a* definition of an+b that takes
care of whitespace properly. However, that definition won't mix well
with property grammars, where whitespace is never significant.  Trying
to make it work is a layering violation, albeit a minor one.

~TJ

Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 17:09:19 UTC