-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 644
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[css-syntax-3] - !important diagram forgot to allow whitespaces before "!" #6335
Comments
But the The |
Even then, the present page shows that for values other than preserved tokens there is can be no whitespace. More so the value as properties rules are drawn now can be bypassed altogether, so there would be totally nothing between ":" and "!", not a byte. Since the "!important" schematics picture already includes "ws*" in all other places but the start, it would be better to make it uniform and to add leading "ws*" too.
Well, actually "ommited" whitespace still is valid "ws*" block - that is what asterisk means: "zero or any positive number of". |
What's the problem? Is there any place not using
Yeah, that seems a valid declaration, though then the grammar of most CSS properties will reject that. But
I mean that |
The situation is not that "zero whitespaces is valid too", the situation is, that schematics suggestes "only zero whitespaces is valid" That is why "!important" picture better be made uniform and include "ws*" blocks in the beginning too, like it already does in other places. Or, alternatively, totally remove "ws*" form that picture. |
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-syntax-3/#parser-diagrams
Chapter 5.1 - "!important" railroad diagram picture claims there can be no whitespace between property value and "!" character.
But there obviously can be, and actually there almost always exists at least one space.
It would be less counter-intuitive if "ws*" had been omitted all the way around values, including between "!" and "important".
But since "ws*" was inserted in some places but not another - it creates an impression that those places are intentionally different.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: