- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:18:55 +0800
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Oh
What I was suggesting that in the case, where outer.css says:
@var $foo 10px;
@import url('inner.css')
div { width $foo }
and inner.css(1) says
div { height $foo }
Then indeed, $foo cascades into the included stylesheet if it's not re-declared there.
But if inner.css(2) says
@var $foo red;
p { color: $foo }
then the div in outer still gets 10px, as the re-declaration in inner.css is no longer in scope, but paragraphs are red according to inner.css. This is classical lexical scoping; $foo is shadowed in the nested scope.
I am not sure what the scoping rule would be to enable what you give below, and at the same time avoid unintended clashes/redefinitions.
On Feb 16, 2011, at 20:24 , Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Le 16/02/11 08:26, David Singer a écrit :
>
>> Is it harmful to have variables textually local to the document in which they occur?
>
> Assuming your "document" above means "stylesheet", my answer is yes.
>
>
> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="corporate.css"/>
> <style type="text/css">
> .logo { content: $logoUrl; }
> </style>
>
> The above - a real test case real users have been asking for more than a
> decade - is possible only because variables cross stylesheet boundaries.
> If the logoUrl is changed by the corporate stylesheet, the web page is
> visually updated w/o any action from the page author.
>
> </Daniel>
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 00:20:02 UTC