- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:24:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
What I think you're proposing here is a way to change the "size" of certain units, right? An easy way to do this today is to use a variable as a "base size" rather than using units directly; that is, write `width: calc(var(--px) * 5)` instead of `width: 5px`. It's definitely verbose, but it works everywhere. ^_^ At some point in the nearish future we'll have custom functions, so you could instead write this as `width: --px(5);`; this'll be backed by a JS function, so you can map it to a length however you want. (This isn't specced yet, but they're the next thing on my list for CSS Houdini specs.) All in all, I think leaning on this sort of functionality makes more sense here. Adding a new implicit-conversion functionality that makes a length like "16px" not be 16px would end up being more confusing, I think. For example, what happens if someone writes `--foo: 20px;` on an element with this sort of mapping? If it's unregistered, the length won't be interpreted as such; it'll inherit down as the value "20px" and be interpreted with whatever the mapping is on the descendant that uses `var(--foo)`; if it's registered, it'll be converted early and inherit as the altered size. We already have this sort of "early or late" problem with some functions in variables; extending it to *all lengths* would be pretty confusing, I think. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3874#issuecomment-487155079 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 26 April 2019 18:24:40 UTC