- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:39:17 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > On 18/04/2014 19:09, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I plan to rewrite the parsing section into a Syntax-style parser, at >> which point it would have the same structure as Syntax wrt "parse a >> foo" algorithms. Would that work? > > Why is this desirable? > > As far as I can tell, the reason Syntax moved away from a grammar was to be > able to precisely define non-trivial error handling behaviors. But the error > handling of Selectors *is* trivial: if the input does not match the grammar, > it’s invalid. Done. > > When it makes sense and is sufficiently precise, I’d prefer to have a > concise grammar than an algorithm written in English. Yeah, I thought about this more, and decided that just using CSS-style grammar instead of Bison-style would be sufficient. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 19:40:05 UTC