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

Re: [CSS-idea] CSS with classes.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:51:50 -0700
Message-ID: <486BC036.8090902@terrainformatica.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>

Daniel Glazman wrote:
 >
 > Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
 >>
 >> Here is the idea for how to extend CSS by classes or style sets. So to
 >> get CSS++ - object oriented CSS.
 >
 > I think this proposal gives CSS two things : power and total
 > unreadability. I'm not ready to accept the latter to get the former.

Daniel, I do not understand what exactly is unreadable there?

@style-set Name { ... definitions ... }

is not more unreadable than:

@media MQ-condition { ... definitions ... }


 >
 > If we go that way, soon only the original author of a given stylesheet
 > will be able to modify it because of the complexity of the prose...

"If you will design language that even idiots can use then it will
be used only by idiots." (C) unknown

In any case:

1) style-set is not introducing any new syntax forms so
is not making readability per se as more difficult.

2) style-set can even increase readability. Instead of:

   .class B {}
   .class C {}
   .class D {}
   .class D E {}
   .class C F E {}

you will have:

   .class { style-set: My; }

   @style-set My
   {
     B {}
     C {}
     D {}
     D E {}
     C F E {}
   }

 >
 > I'm against this proposal.

Why I suspected that you will say that? :)

I just thought that if people are ready to seriously discuss things like

@variables {
   foregroundColor: blue;
   @declaration headers {
     color: green;
     background-color: white
}

then they will be ready for the style-sets.

 >
 > </Daniel>
 >
 >


-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:52:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:10 GMT