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

> 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