- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:19:47 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:35:27 +0200, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 09/04/2013 01:22, fantasai a écrit : >> ISSUE-316:http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/316 >> Should ID selectors accept all HASH tokens instead of #ident only? >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0437.html >> >> Pros: Merge quirks and non-quirks parsing. >> Cons: We have interop on #ident. >> See:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0449.html >> >> Side-question: If we don't accept this, should this quirk be >> described in Selectors 4? > > Should quirks be described: yes, always, IMO. Not if we want to drop the quirk. This quirk is not present in Firefox/Safari/Chrome. That means we can drop it. > This case is a bit weird as it is the "non-quirks" parsing (#ident) that > requires extra effort in both specs and implementations. > > I’m in favor of doing the simpler thing (always parsing as HASH) if > there is no web-compat risk, but I don’t know how to assess that. Likely there are pages that rely on the quirk not being present in standards mode as a way to target old IE, or some such. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 11:20:24 UTC