Patterns may be ambiguous; an algorithm that is ambiguous would also be dubious and thus easily identified and rejected. Of course, patterns can be proven to be precise, but using explicit algorithms is safer. IMHO, Chris
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eduard Pascual Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:22 PM To: Ian Hickson Cc: [email protected]; Sander van Zoest Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This isn't expected to be used often. It's really only provided to allow > for simple override of the actual value in the video file, for when the > video file is known to be wrong. I am very reluctant to make up a whole > new microsyntax and corresponding parser algorithm, along with all the > tests, etc, to handle this one case. I still don't understand why the spec has to define each and every parser algorythm (IMO, it should only define the syntax, and then the implementation should define its own algorythm that parses that syntax as defined); but if that's the issue then a microsyntax can be perfectly avoided by splitting the argument into two separate ones, such as pixelratiox and pixelratioy. Just my opinion.
