xmlgraphics-batik-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47221] cannot parse the input string because of simple CSS
Date Wed, 20 May 2009 12:55:08 GMT

shahryar.ghazi@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                URL|http://www.geeksww.com      |http://theunconventionalnew
                   |                            |s.blogspot.com/

--- Comment #2 from shahryar.ghazi@gmail.com  2009-05-20 05:55:06 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I have changed the URL to the one on the blog (with style tag). Also, I tried
changing the CSS as per your suggestion but unless I remove the body selector
completely or shorten it down to the following batik cannot parse it.

body {

Also, I cannot change the code myself because my program needs to check CSS
files (on other websites) for certain keywords. So, this should be a blocker.

> (In reply to comment #0)
> > The attached CSS file is not getting parsed properly by the batick CSS parser.
> > But, if I remove the following selector(with properties) from CSS I am able to
> > parse it.
> > 
> > body {
> > background:#ffffff;
> > margin:0;
> > color:#333333;
> > font:x-small Georgia Serif;
> > font-size/* */:/**/small;
> > font-size: /**/small;
> > text-align: center;
> > }
> This might be related to bug 45663, a known issue in comment parsing: those
> comments in both "font-size" declarations hint towards that.
> Also, another possibility is the shorthand "font" declaration [1], which may be
> confusing the parser: the textual font-size ("x-small") or the font family
> ("Georgia Serif").
> Decreased importance from "blocker" (which didn't make much sense) to "minor"
> as there seems to be an easy workaround [2] (removing the comments or changing
> the shorthand font declaration to a few declarations and/or enclosing font
> family with quotes). Could you confirm this?
> Also, note that the report's URL should be a "URL associated with the bug, if
> any" [3], usually pointing to some relevant mailing list discussion or Web page
> displaying the issue. The current URL doesn't seem to make much sense in this
> scope, apart from feeling like some kind of publicity. Please confirm this (and
> remove the URL) or enter some detail about the relationship with the issue...
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#FontProperty
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#importance
> [3] http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/bug_page.html

Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org

View raw message