Re: [libcroco-list] Libcroco notes

[Dodji Seketeli <dodji seketeli org>]

Hello,

Long long time ago folks :-)
I am very busy these days so I tend to concentrate on one project at a
time. Unfortunately, libcroco was not the project I was working on.

It seems I need to catch up with css parsing again :-)

Now, the real meat.

On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 07:03:21PM +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>   I've just re-started some libcroco coding and found some quirks; I'm
> not sure yet how to approach all of these, I'll just list them for now
> so I don't forget later. This is for the current code in CVS.

> The library does not declare which symbols should be exported, so no
> symbols are exported on Win32 (and not imported in client code), so
> you have to use static linking on Win32 or write a .def file where the
> exports are listed. It would be good to have a macro that takes care
> of this, e.g. XMLPUBFUN in libxml2 does this.

Ah, true. Well, I don't have any windows box so it is unlikely that I do
that myself :-). I'll accept patches for that tough.

> 
> It seems the library can't deal with escape sequences, e.g. it errors
> for x { font-family: Bj\f6rn } and truncates the identifier after "Bj"
> (it should just make an identifier "Björn"); similar for strings, e.g.
> x { font-family: "Bj\f6rn" } yields in error and ignoring the property
> alltogether.

Ah. I think the best approach is to fill the bug in bugzilla so that we
don't loose it.

> 
> There is no way to tell the difference between x:3y and x:3.0y which
> is important to know since some properties like counter-increment do
> not allow numbers but only integers.
> 
> The CRNum structure does not scale well to CSS3, since the units are
> hardcoded, only known unit identifiers are recognized, so properties
> using CSS3 unit identifiers like x:3rem; can't be processed.

True. The parse needs to be extended (at least) to support CSS3, and
have a better handling of the core syntax parsing.

> 
> Is there a reason why CRTerm stores operators and such not as simple
> values? At the moment x:1+2 would be two terms, it would seem a bit
> more intuitive and simpler to make that three terms...
I am not sure to get you right here. Could you tell me what the 3 terms 
would be ?

Cheers,

Dodji.