W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

[css-variables] For consideration

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:52:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jePiP0EdxcuLH0J64v2onAAhvEk5ROVhx1mZKtHL3ZfKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
I know that CSS Variables is to be discussed in the F2F and I wanted
to make one last effort to make sure that anyone involved in those
conversations was aware of the syntax-related counter proposal that
François and I put together (CSS Custom Properties), what the
differences are and why we put it together in the first place....

Why...
Essentially, every time new people reviewed the existing draft there
was obvious confusion about what the syntax meant and how it worked
(also what might be valid) because of the perceived relationship with
the syntax in existing pre-processors. We saw this on the list, in
offline conversations and later in the comments when Tab's post wound
up on Hacker News.  A few of us began arguing the case that the
problem was that it began based on some of those ideas, but evolved
into something entirely different which fit CSS perfectly and that the
syntax/verbiage/etc didn't evolve with it.  Some folks on the list
encouraged us to fork the draft and submit a counter proposal.

We did this and posted it at:
http://fremycompany.com/TR/2012/ED-css-custom/

We also wrote two articles about it...
http://briankardell.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/properties-the-new-variables/
http://fremycompany.com/BG/2012/Explaining-CSS-Custom-Properties/

The former also spent time on the front page of HN and included a poll
-- while I realize it is not scientific and the number of respondents
is small and potentially not representative (though there should be no
'bias' as I personally only sent it to people from the list who
appeared to disagree), the results were:

The existing Variables Draft.  18.52%
The revised Custom Properties Draft.  74.07%
Both are equal.  7.41%

Either way, I think it's a win as Tab was able to (I think) at least
pull in some of our examples/use-cases and things but I am definitely
interested to see the minutes :)

One final note - François and I also discussed last week editing the
draft to do away with $parent() and just always use $() and allow it
to use a dot notation in the arguments to specify parent (or whatever
others wind up being necessary) - though we haven't updated it.

-Brian
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 17:53:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT