14007 2007-06-05 16:14:06 -0700 Unclosed CSS block causes incorrect handling of rest of stylesheet 2022-07-07 12:32:06 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit CSS 523.x (Safari 3) Mac OS X 10.4 RESOLVED CONFIGURATION CHANGED P2 Normal --- 1 esprehn webkit-unassigned ap bfulgham oldest_to_newest 8305 0 esprehn 2007-06-05 16:14:06 -0700 If a block is not closed and the rule following it is not a type selector then unclosed block and all rules until the end of the are ignored. Reproducible in Safari 2 and the latest nightly (Mon Jun 4 23:39:30 GMT 2007, 21970). 8306 1 14871 esprehn 2007-06-05 16:17:52 -0700 Created attachment 14871 Unclosed block followed by non-type selector. The text in the examples should be colored the same as the color for each word. 8307 2 14872 esprehn 2007-06-05 16:19:41 -0700 Created attachment 14872 Unclosed Block Followed By Type Selector Text should be colored the same as word specifies. 8308 3 esprehn 2007-06-05 16:25:47 -0700 Apparently the handling seems to differ based on if there's a type or non-type selector after the unclosed block. Both behaviors are wrong as per the spec and behavior of FireFox and IE. If there's a type selector Webkit ignores the entire rest of the sheet and the rules in the unclosed block. If there's no type selector Webkit closes the block at the next rule, ignores the that rule, but doesn't ignore the rest of the stylesheet or the rule that was missing the close brace. Behavior as per the spec and the what other browsers do is to make the whole rest of the sheet into "invalid rules" and ignore them, but to respect the rules in the unclosed block that happened before the next rule was encountered. 8312 4 ddkilzer 2007-06-05 17:00:49 -0700 Confirmed with a local debug build of WebKit r21976 with Safari 2.0.4 (419.3) on Mac OS X 10.4.9 (8P135). Both examples work in Firefox 2.0.0.4 and Opera 9.10. 8325 5 sam 2007-06-06 00:36:59 -0700 Is this the same bug as 12558? 8339 6 ap 2007-06-06 04:13:48 -0700 I'm not sure if this can be closed as a duplicate - but it's closely related for sure. 100639 7 ap 2008-11-28 14:01:28 -0800 Bug 12558 is fixed now, but this is not. 1881442 8 bfulgham 2022-07-07 12:32:06 -0700 Safari, Chrome, and Firefox produce the same output for both test cases. I don't believe any compatibility issues remain for this bug. 14871 2007-06-05 16:17:52 -0700 2007-06-05 16:20:28 -0700 Unclosed block followed by non-type selector. test.html text/html 462 esprehn PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEvL0VOIgogICAgICAg ICJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9odG1sNC9zdHJpY3QuZHRkIj4KCjxodG1sPgoKPGhlYWQ+ Cgk8dGl0bGU+Zm9vPC90aXRsZT4KCTxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9ImNvbnRlbnQtdHlwZSIgY29u dGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4KCQoJPHN0eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3Nz Ij4KCQlib2R5IHsKCQkJY29sb3I6IGJsdWU7CgkJfQoJCgkJcCB7CgkJCWNvbG9yOiByZWQ7CgkJ CgkJLmRpdiB7CgkJCWNvbG9yOiBwaW5rOwoJCX0KCQkKCQlzcGFuIHsKCQkJY29sb3I6IGdyZWVu OwoJCX0KCTwvc3R5bGU+CgkKPC9oZWFkPgo8Ym9keT4KCWJsdWUKCTxwPnJlZDwvcD4KCTxkaXYg Y2xhc3M9ImRpdiI+CgkJYmx1ZSA8c3Bhbj5ibHVlPC9zcGFuPgoJPC9kaXY+CgkKPC9ib2R5Pgo8 L2h0bWw+ 14872 2007-06-05 16:19:41 -0700 2007-06-05 16:19:41 -0700 Unclosed Block Followed By Type Selector test.html text/html 461 esprehn PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEvL0VOIgogICAgICAg ICJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9odG1sNC9zdHJpY3QuZHRkIj4KCjxodG1sPgoKPGhlYWQ+ Cgk8dGl0bGU+Zm9vPC90aXRsZT4KCTxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9ImNvbnRlbnQtdHlwZSIgY29u dGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4KCQoJPHN0eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3Nz Ij4KCQlib2R5IHsKCQkJY29sb3I6IGJsdWU7CgkJfQoJCgkJcCB7CgkJCWNvbG9yOiByZWQ7CgkJ CgkJZGl2IHsKCQkJY29sb3I6IHBpbms7CgkJfQoJCQoJCXNwYW4gewoJCQljb2xvcjogZ3JlZW47 CgkJfQoJPC9zdHlsZT4KCQo8L2hlYWQ+Cjxib2R5PgoJYmx1ZQoJPHA+cmVkPC9wPgoJPGRpdiBj bGFzcz0iZGl2Ij4KCQlibHVlIDxzcGFuPmJsdWU8L3NwYW4+Cgk8L2Rpdj4KCQo8L2JvZHk+Cjwv aHRtbD4=