W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: at-rules irregularities was (Re: CSS Mixins proposal)

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:00:55 +1100
Message-ID: <4D955C07.8050002@css-class.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Nathan Weizenbaum <nweiz@google.com>, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
On 1/04/2011 10:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Alan Gresley<alan@css-class.com>  wrote:
>> On 24/03/2011 3:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> This OK with the above but can we please drop this notion that this is
>> something for the CSS WG to conclude. If you have noted what messages appear
>> on this list, you will have notice that not all people who contribute on the
>> list or who contribute to CSS are in the CSS WG.
>> I will quote what David say on that bug:
>>   | I think this needs discussion on www-style first
>>   | before we commit anything.
>> www-style is not the CSS WG.
>> Apart from my contributions here and in the future, the CSS-testsuite, I
>> also subscribe to CSS discuss. I can also give feedback from an authors
>> perspective.
> For the record, this *is* something for the CSSWG to decide.
> www-style is an open mailing list; we welcome and *greatly* value
> input and feedback from the wider community (after all, many of us,
> including myself, were part of that "wider community" that gave
> feedback before we were invited to join the WG).  Final decisions,
> though, are only made by the WG itself, not the public participants on
> the mailing list.  In this particular case, Hyatt is indeed referring
> to a WG decision to pursue Mixins with a particular syntax.  Of
> course, the WG makes such a decision based on the mailing list
> discussion.
> ~TJ

I agree with this. I have no problem with the concept of mixins. Your 
minins proposal just collided with my test with CSS grammar which was my 
error. I'm now focusing on CSS2.1 syntax and data. I'm only recommending 
constancy with at-rules grammar. Striping out the strings between the 
curly braces leaves this syntax.

   @page :left { ... }

   @media screen { ... }

   @font-face { ... }

   @media all and (foo) { ... }

   @trait foo { ... }

   @trait bar(foo) { ... }

I see that this is out of the scope of CSS2.1 'syntax and data' and 
would recommend that the CSS WG consider creating a CSS3 spec for syntax 
and data.

A few months ago I was seeing syntax like below which scared me.

@apply-effect: filter, background;

Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 05:01:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC