- From: Cecil Ward <cecil@cecilward.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:14:46 +0100
- To: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Hi Jens, Agreed. That certainly seems to be the consensus. And that appears to reflect the real behaviour of some UAs (having done a very brief experiment with Firefox 1.5 as a spot-check). I certainly believe that the wording of the standard is weak in this area in that it does not use accepted terminological conventions well and that a full description in a true formal grammar is lacking for font names and "keywords" and the syntax of "font-family", say. What is the precise syntax of a "keyword" or font name if represented by a quoteLESS string?. Anyway, if your reading is indeed that which the CSS authors then the CSS validator exhibits correct behaviour. I will suggest that we terminate this thread with thanks to all, as this may become off-topic for the validator list. This raises a lot of other questions, such as: Which escapes are legal for a non-keyword font-name (which is not quoted)? (Reasoning: are we looking at an "ident" then? Or as per the "string" production, something which follows the syntax of a quoted string but without its quotes? The syntax of these productions in the appendix is not the same.) But these topics should be dealt with elsewhere. Cecil.
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 09:15:00 UTC