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

Re: Proposal for adding variable declaration blocks

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:52:39 -0700
To: "Francois Remy" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Message-Id: <9AC82236-24A3-4C14-9186-BE81A286BC24@comcast.net>
Cc: "Simetrical" <simetrical@gmail.com>, "James Elmore" <James.Elmore@cox.net>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>

On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Francois Remy wrote:

>> I don't care, honestly.  var() is more CSS-style.  I just prefer
>> $varName over =varName or =varName=.
> Yes =varName is ugly, I agree with you.

As the person who proposed =varName , I would like to say that I now  
understand the reasons for $ as a prefix, and I'm OK with it. I still  
prefer the equals sign, and am more familiar with Web scripting  
languages that don't use it (like JavaScript and vbsscript), but if  
most others think it is ugly, I can certainly live with the $  
alternative. I like it a hundred times more than using functional  
notation like var(varName). That seems completely unneeded. Functional  
notation is used when you need to contain something with its own  
syntax like url(), or a group of sub-values as with rgb(). The  
variable name would likely be alphanumeric only, so a simple and  
understandable single letter prefix is best, and easy to understand  
and remember.

This extra symbol is only needed when the value is called (for forward  
compatibility with future keyword values), not when it is defined  
(since the @ rule would prevent problems with other specs). So I feel  
this is the best (if no one but fantasai and I like "=varName"):

@define {
   myForegroundColor: blue;
   myBackgroundColor: green;
   myButtonStyle: {
     border: outset silver;
     background: silver;

h1 {
   background-color: @myForegroundColor;
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2008 04:53:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:38 UTC