On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:12:01 +0530, "Rajika Kumarasiri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. I read that there are either options, that is to re-write the entire > CSS engine(according to the given API) or develop from the existing one.
Yes. It's worth pointing out that the suggested API is not set in stone. There are still a few issues with the style selection API that need to be worked out, for example. I think that it's pretty close to what is required, however. > So I'd like to rewrite the CSS engine according to the given API. (as a > side note please note that the hand coded lexer+parser combination work > more fast, than a generated one), but most of the part of the engine is > written I also feel it'd would be easy to continue to work from there. > Please give me a clue to pick one of the choices. (I'd love to re-write > the engine still so that I can apply the theories that I learned in > theory of computing and compiler theory) It is certainly possible to insert a replacement lexer+parser into the existing CSS infrastructure. However, the existing stylesheet management and selection code has a number of issues which will need fixing. Additionally, and as the ideas page says, in the long term NetSurf will be needing support for the DOM CSS module. Therefore, a rewrite is my preferred option. > 2. When writing the proposal should I give some implementation information > if I thought to re-write the entire engine again.? Yes please. I'd be expecting to see some evidence that a) you've read the relevant parts of the specifications and b) you've given some thought to how to go about implementing it. Cheers, John.
