Minor changes which I think makes crass nicer

[stoivo]

For the last couple of days I have been looking at crass and how it parses CSS. I didn't end up making any big changes. I did some changed that I think is nice. I wonder if you are interested in merging any of these changed?

[rgrove]

Thanks for the contributions.

I appreciate the spec URL updates in commit ff4b3e4 (minus the changes to test/css-parsing-tests/README.rst, which is in a git subtree and shouldn't be modified) and the test name improvement in commit 08f6145.

However, I'm not interested in the refactoring in commits 91fe420 and 6a71dd7. Those are semver-major changes that would break backwards compatibility, and I don't think they're necessary.

[stoivo]

Updated the PR to only two commit you wanted

However, I'm not interested in the refactoring in commits 91fe420 and 6a71dd7. Those are semver-major changes that would break backwards compatibility, and I don't think they're necessary.

If I could make it so it isn't breaking semver would you like to include it then? 6a71dd7 it easy to do without breaking semver. 91fe420 can't be done without breaking semver but I don't think these methods was intendent to be public

[rgrove]

Updated the PR to only two commit you wanted

Thank you!

If I could make it so it isn't breaking semver would you like to include it then? 6a71dd7 it easy to do without breaking semver. 91fe420 can't be done without breaking semver but I don't think these methods was intendent to be public

After giving this some thought, I'd prefer not to reorganize things this way, at least for now.

Crass::Parser is intended to be public, even though most users shouldn't need to use it. The methods on Crass are aliases that provide the "simple" API that most users will use, whereas Crass::Parser contains the actual parser implementation and exposes lower level functionality that most users won't need unless they're implementing their own custom parsers.

That said, I would be open to making Crass::stringify an alias for Crass::Parser.stringify, but only an alias — I don't want to move the actual implementation to Crass.

[stoivo]

Do you think users are calling instance method consume_component_value and consume_declaration, and this is public api?