W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [css3] Suggestion: Selector variables or “synonyms”

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:16:50 +0000
Message-ID: <47AE1842.6060100@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>

Brad Kemper wrote:
> 
> On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:13 AM, David Woolley wrote:
> 
>> Jens Meiert wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, Carmelo Capinpin already suggested the concept in 2006 
>>> [1] (with few success, unfortunately [2]), but I may propose to 
>>> consider something like “selector variables” in CSS 3 again in order 
>>> to help both maintainability and style sheet efficiency.
>>>
>>> The basic idea is to syntactically allow definitions like
>>>
>>>   E = F;
>>>
>>> … so that rules matching E would match F as well (and the other way 
>>> around), while variable (or synonym) declarations could probably be 
>>> located at the beginning of a style sheet or within a certain @-rule.
>>>
>>
>> Could you explain how this would interact with the cascade, in 
>> particular:
>>
>>
>> - how does it interact with !important rules;
>>
>> - what is the scope of the effect.
>>
>>
> 
> I know you weren't asking me, but I would like to answer based on the 
> way I suggested handling this sort of thing (see quoted text below), in 
> which constants are merely placeholders for other text. Thus, the 
> definition of the constants would not be involved in the cascade, and 

That would only be true if the mechanism only had file scope (in which 
case it is a candidate for server side processing).  Is that what you meant?

> The last value in the constant assignment will have an implied semicolon 
> if it is missing. Adding "!important" to a rule as part of the value of 
> the "constant" parameter would thus be ignored, in the following example:

The point about important was that, if the scope is not limited to the 
file, user !important rules must not be compromised by author selector 
equivalences.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 21:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:01 GMT