":lang() syntax is still `<ident> | <string>`?" (was: Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2015-01-14)

* Dael Jackson wrote:
>:lang() Issues
>  <TabAtkins> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Dec/0177.html
>  TabAtkins: Previously we resolved to allow asterisks in :lang(),
>             but per my email (above) I think we shouldn't. The
>             legacy language behavior for ident-ish things can stay,
>             but as soon as you need an asterisk, which breaks ident
>             parsing, we should require use of strings.
>  TabAtkins: In general, terms defined from outside CSS are
>             represented with strings, as it avoids parsing
>             confusion.
>  fantasai: I think problems with asterisks is something that will
>            be very rare for authors to run into, but I don't have
>            objections if y'all have a strong opinion.
>  Florian: Mini-grammars not inside quotes tend to get painful
>           eventually (see recent issues with unicode range), so I'm
>           with tab
>  plinss: So, any objections to requiring string?
>  RESOLVED: Require quoting :lang() values as a string if they have
>            asterisks.
>  <SimonSapin> TabAtkins, so :lang() syntax is still `<ident> |
>               <string>`?

This does not seem to be answered in the minutes. :lang(\*-x) could make
the whole selector invalid (entire rule is dropped), but it could also
just match nothing, or the ident could still be interpreted as if it had
been a string, but validators ought to complain, or a similar variant.
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 Thursday, 15 January 2015 17:27:40 UTC