Re: another an+b issue (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2013-05-22)

On Wednesday 2013-05-29 14:44 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I think the correct decision is to not care in the slightest, and let
> whatever behavior falls out of the tokenizer just work.  This is one
> of those things of so little importance that even the time you took to
> write the email is more than it deserves.  ^_^

I don't think that's quite true.

You're going to write something in the spec that defines the
behavior.  Somebody's eventually going to write tests for the
behavior.  And the particular behavior that you specify might
rule out some approaches to implementation in preference for other
approaches.  So before we reimplement an+b, we actually want to
ensure this sort of thing is stable, so that somebody bringing it up
later doesn't force us to do a rewrite of the entire thing again.


𝄞   L. David Baron                  𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                    𝄂

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 07:33:18 UTC