Re: [css-syntax] Reverting <unicode-range> changes from CSS 2.1

Looks good to me.

Irrelevantly (but I happened to notice this while looking over the
changes), my last name should be spelled "Weinberg", not "Weinburg",
in Issue 3.

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Syntax ED had a some changes to the <unicode-range> token from CSS 2.1
> where it tried to make the syntax closer to what @font-face accepts, parse a
> numeric range as soon as in the tokenizer, and do some range normalization.
>
>
> I just "reverted" these changes, and wrote a definition that matches CSS
> 2.1’s idea of what <unicode-range> is:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/dec8752a6390#l3.1
>
> Instead of a numeric range, <unicode-range> tokens now have a "start" and an
> optional "end", each made of one to six code points. Parsing this into a
> numeric range is left to the Fonts spec (the only one where <unicode-range>
> is ever valid,) which it already defines.
>
>
> Reasoning:
>
> * This makes Syntax agnostic to the exact treatment of <unicode-range> in
> the Fonts spec. For example, Fonts recently changed to make ranges ending
> outside of Unicode invalid instead of clipping them. Compare:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css3-fonts-20130212/#unicode-range-desc
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css-fonts-3-20130711/#unicode-range-desc
>
> * Yes, CSS 2.1’s definition is silly and allows invalid ranges such as
> U+1?5-300, but changing it does not buy us anything. It’s fine to have
> absurd input be valid at the Syntax level and rejected by a given
> property/descriptor/selector/etc.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Simon Sapin
>