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

Re: variables/mixins in chrome

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:33:10 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU159-ds1755B2F775FE20867ECC6DF8E90@phx.gbl>
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Daniel,

I believe your document should mention prior art either -
various proposals on the lists for constants/macro definitions in CSS:
http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/constants

But I shall admit that no one asked for exactly variables
So that "spherical horse in the Vacuum" [1] of yours can
probably be considered as having no prior art.

[1] 
http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/meltingpot/jinx/399/jokes/Education/Physicists.html

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com




-----Original Message----- 
From: Daniel Glazman
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:29 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: variables/mixins in chrome

I'm reading http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b49w0 and I am
really surprised to read "the time until this starts showing up in
nightly builds of Webkit is measurable in months"...

Your cross-css/javascript variables proposal raises a few important
concerns and I think the whole thing should be discussed in the WG
_BEFORE_ Google starts implementing it.

Last thing, I really dislike when a new proposal does not give back to
Caesar what belongs to Caesar, in other terms when references are not
present. It's a question of politeness, correctness and document
quality. The original proposal for CSS Variables is [1].

[1] http://disruptive-innovations.com/zoo/cssvariables/

</Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 17:34:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT