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

> On 04 Feb 2015, at 04:48, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:18 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.
> 
> As Zack says, all of the CSS2 grammar has been superseded by CSS Syntax.
> 
> It's quite easy to trace the execution of the spec's tokenizer.  In
> particular, "consume an ident-like token" will eat the `url(`, then
> send you down the "consume a url token" algo, which immediately hits
> the EOF and returns a (valid) url token with an empty url.

Should we remove from 2.2 all the sections that have been superseded?

"CSS2.2 = CSS2.1 + errata" is already useful, but
"CSS2.2 = CSS2.1 + errata - superseded_parts" is even better and will
lead to a lot less confusion. Publishing a new spec with parts that should
be ignored seems unfriendly to most readers. 

I realize that quite a few things that supersede CSS2.1 are not yet at REC,
and this does complicate things a bit. But at the very least, we should be
able to add notes pointing to the newer things, and maybe we can do even
better than that.

 - Florian

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 16:33:48 UTC