- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:37:13 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 22/06/15 17:26, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > So I think there are two ways we can handle this: > > 1. Abandon the project, restore <unicode-range-token>, and live with > the fact that we have a weird almost-useless token that will > occasionally cause problems for authors in unrelated contexts. (We > can't even really do something like make Selectors treat unicode-range > specially, because it can cut selectors in pieces - "u+area" parses as > a urange(a) ident(rea)!) Not sure if this is a good idea, but we *could* handle that in the Selectors grammar as well. u+a/**/rea would also parse, which we might not want, but it’s much harder for authors to accidentally do that than u+a. > 2. Produce a new, reliable syntax for unicode ranges, and keep around > the old version for back-compat, with a warning that some values won't > parse correctly. The most obvious fix is to just replace the + with a > -, like "U-0404", "U-400-600", or "U-4??". This makes the entire > thing an ident, which keeps around the characters properly (or an > ident followed by some ? delims, which is also fine). `unicode-range: U+04e4` works today in multiple browsers. Breaking this seems worse than the u+a selector not working. (Introducing an alternative unicode-range syntax will not help existing unmaintained content.) -- Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 22:37:50 UTC