Like, An+B, this is an old construct that does not fit well with modern
CSS syntax, so things get a bit hairy! We have to determine which
tokens match the grammar for `<urange>`, then turn those back into a
string, and then parse the string differently from normal. Thankfully
the spec describes in detail how to do that. :^)
This is not 100% correct, since we are not using the original source
text (referred to in the spec as the "representation") of the tokens,
but just converting them to strings in a manual, ad-hoc way.
Re-engineering the Tokenizer to keep that original text was too much of
a tangent for today. In any case, we do parse `U+4???`, `U+0-100`,
`U+1234`, and similar, so good enough for now!
"Component value" is the term used in the spec, and it doesn't conflict
with any other types, so let's use the shorter name. :^)
Also, this doesn't need to be friends with the Parser any more.
We're calling this in a way that is incorrect, and so the algorithm's
assumption that the next token is an `<ident-token>` is wrong, and we
have to handle that failing. Ideally we would just stop calling this
incorrectly, but until then, let's actually document what is happening.
The code had to change a bit to match. Previously, we appended an empty
sub-list immediately, but now we append it at the end. The difference
is that if there are no tokens, we now correctly return an empty
list-of-lists, instead of a list containing an empty list.
We now correctly call convert_to_rule() outside of this function.
As before, I've renamed `parse_as_rule()` -> `parse_as_css_rule()` to
match the free function that calls it.
This is not actually used by anything currently, but it should be used
for `@media` and other at-rules.
Removed the public parse_as_list_of_rules() because public functions
should be things that outside classes actually need to use.
`parse_a_stylesheet()` should not do any conversion on its rules. This
change corrects that. There are other places where we get this wrong,
but one thing at a time. :^)
CSS Values and Units Module Level 5 defines attr as:
`attr(<q-name> <attr-type>?, <declaration-value>?)`
This implementation does not contain support for the type argument,
effectively supporting `attr(<q-name>, <declaration-value>?)`
When parsing the "style" attribute on elements, we'd previously ask the
CSS parser for a PropertyOwningCSSStyleDeclaration. Then we'd create a
new ElementCSSInlineStyleDeclaration and transfer the properties from
the first object to the second object.
This patch teaches the parser to make ElementCSSInlineStyleDeclaration
objects directly.
When I wrote the An+B parser, it was guaranteed to have no
non-whitespace tokens after it. This is no longer true with the `of
foo` syntax, so this patch corrects the logic when there is no `+B`
segment.
This makes this case shown on Twitter work correctly. :^)
https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1506657566012678151
`text-shadow` does not support this, so this way we can still use the
same parsing code.
It's OK that we still assign a ShadowPlacement value to the
ShadowStyleValue, since it will just get ignored when painting
text-shadows, but if it appears in the property value then that is a
syntax error.
The `text-shadow` property is almost identical to `box-shadow`:
> Values are interpreted as for box-shadow [CSS-BACKGROUNDS-3].
> (But note that the inset keyword are not allowed.)
So, let's use the same data structures and parsing code for both. :^)
There's really no reason to use doubles here, except at the time I
wanted to use doubles everywhere in CSS. I now realize that is
excessive, so everything can be floats instead.
There was no real benefit to creating the SimpleSelector early and then
modifying it, and doing so made this code harder to follow than it
needs to be.
