Re: [css-syntax] Removed <unicode-range-token>, please review

On Thursday 2014-11-13 17:13 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Per the resolution from the 2014-07-02 telcon, I've removed the
> <unicode-range-token> from Syntax entirely, and replaced it with a
> <urange> microsyntax: <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-syntax/#urange>
> 
> If you're interested in this kind of thing, please give it a look-over
> and verify that I haven't missed any cases or made any mistakes.  It
> was simpler than I thought it would be to spec out.
> 
> One significant change is that the <urange> production is much looser
> than the <unicode-range-token> parsing previously defined.  <urange>
> does not attempt to ensure that the refs have at most 6 digits (or 6
> total digits + question marks), as that would have made the speccing
> and implementation much more difficult.  While I was against the
> looser definition when it was a token, as a microsyntax (which is only
> recognized when it's specifically called for) I'm fine with it being a
> little loose.  This has no effect on its use in practice; it just
> means that you can write things like U+0000000 (7 digits) that weren't
> previously allowed.

I'd prefer to leave which values are valid syntax and which aren't
the way they are; I don't see the point in introducing compatibility
risk without a good reason.  Unless, that is, implementation
behavior doesn't actually match the current spec.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)