W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-syntax] <urange> and it's problems

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:31:00 +0900
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8C1D7A47-20BE-47CB-8108-D37AC555580A@rivoal.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On Apr 13, 2016, at 07:09, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:27 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> Given unicode-range is already shipping
>>  http://caniuse.com/#feat=font-unicode-range
>> I think #3 is a non-starter.
> You might have misread - #3 is explicitly backwards-compatible. It
> requires UAs to support the old syntax, it just doesn't describe how
> they would do so.

As a UA implementor who has this on the roadmap, I don't like having a spec telling us to do something, without telling us how. All UAs would probably do fine at supporting the old syntax when it is correctly used, but I am much less confident that we'd all pick the same logic for error handling, and it is important that we all react the same way in the face of unknown/incorrect syntax.

>> I would imagine that reparsing unicode-range tokens in order to make
>> the selectors work would be easier than doing #1, no? Hanging onto
>> unicode-range tokens would be a lot less memory than hanging onto
>> numbers and dimensions, given they're used so rarely.
> Yeah, it just means we have to reparse them everywhere *except* unicode-range.

Right, this feels ugly and error prone.

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 00:31:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:58 UTC