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

Re: [css-variables] Different syntax for variable definition and use

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:55:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jcQ0jCg-3nZdzu_58shh93MS-r2ALpnzHDMJ-tpqLLKAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>
On Aug 30, 2012 11:19 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aside from that though, there is a good proposal on the table that,
while it
> > has a few rough edges or things you could bikeshed on seems to have
cleared
> > a lot of acceptance hurdles... what is the damning argument against it
> > really?  Would something like this satisfy it?
> >
> > -x-foo:   25px;
> > width:    val(-x-foo);
>
> No damning argument, only that it's basically exactly the same as the
> current spec, but with very slightly different names, and I like my
> names better. ^_^
>
> ~TJ

I think one of us is misunderstanding each other Tab.  I have spent my last
several posts explaining why I support your way (not so much the var prefix
since they aren't vars proper but custom props, but we could bikeshed that
forever) as the pattern and why the pattern itself fits css and why I think
Jens argument is mostly a non-argument.

I am saying that I have yet to see a damning argument against it.  My
question at the end merely illustrates a way (one of many) that might
satisfy that argument and keep the patterns, I was simply asking Jens if it
would in his mind.
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 15:56:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:59 GMT