W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [CSS21] Ambiguity in tokenizer, "normative appendix G"

From: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:09:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKCAbMg4gU-RoQ7Pp4srLTGtZmKUmfLskrfX5fTwyE=Bn_NiGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I think most of the text you're concerned with has been superseded by
css3-syntax, which is a total rewrite.  What's the status of that?

IIRC variations of `url(` at the end of the input are considered
*valid* (but empty) URLs, on the "end of style sheet closes all open
constructs without error" principle, but I could be wrong, it's been a
while.

zw

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   In http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#syntax
> "These descriptions are normative. They are also complemented by the
> normative grammar rules presented in Appendix G." but Appendix G is
> marked "This appendix is non-normative." so that doesn't make sense.
>
> In 4.1.1. the specification apparently fails to say whether variations
> of `url(` at the end of the input are FUNCTION or BAD_URI tokens. They
> should probably be BAD_URI tokens.
>
> The CSS 2.2 draft has the same problems.
>
> regards,
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>  Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 21:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC