You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
<function-token> is a non-preserved token, therefore there will be no <function-token> when parsing <pseudo-class-selector>. However, CSS Values allows <function-token> <any-value> ')':
I am not sure why there would be a need to represent a functional notation like this rather than only with a prose saying that it represents a function component value, or with <function>, for example.
I see the flexibility to define a function with <function-token> <number> ')' to allow an arbitrary function name accepting <number> as its argument, for example, but the root problem described above remains.
This problem also exists with <general-enclosed>, defined with [<function-token> <any-value>? )] | (<any-value>?).
There is a related (but different) problem with <attribute-selector>, which includes '[' and ']' whereas it represents a simple block associated the corresponding token. They cannot be unquoted otherwise they would represents grouping combinators, but I think it would be usefull to add a note about this.
Selector grammars also use <ident-token> and <string-token> rather than the corresponding CSS type(s).
Selectors are parsed with parse something according to a CSS grammar, which matches the given grammar against component values, not tokens, which makes a difference for functions and simple blocks.
Edited after the changes in CSS Values that allow using <function-token> in value definitions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#typedef-pseudo-element-selector
<function-token>
is a non-preserved token, therefore there will be no<function-token>
when parsing<pseudo-class-selector>
. However, CSS Values allows<function-token> <any-value> ')'
:I am not sure why there would be a need to represent a functional notation like this rather than only with a prose saying that it represents a function component value, or with
<function>
, for example.I see the flexibility to define a function with
<function-token> <number> ')'
to allow an arbitrary function name accepting<number>
as its argument, for example, but the root problem described above remains.This problem also exists with
<general-enclosed>
, defined with[<function-token> <any-value>? )] | (<any-value>?)
.There is a related (but different) problem with
<attribute-selector>
, which includes'['
and']'
whereas it represents a simple block associated the corresponding token. They cannot be unquoted otherwise they would represents grouping combinators, but I think it would be usefull to add a note about this.Selector grammars also use
<ident-token>
and<string-token>
rather than the corresponding CSS type(s).Selectors are parsed with parse something according to a CSS grammar, which matches the given grammar against component values, not tokens, which makes a difference for functions and simple blocks.
Edited after the changes in CSS Values that allow using
<function-token>
in value definitions.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: