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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:59:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD0mJokMS0rONRBQLehcRDx+KMn3bHXu7M6OJ+dyBoFxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Fran├žois REMY
<fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> |  You may want to check the draft.  I switched the terminology to
> |  "custom properties" a week or two ago.
>
> Then, it doesn't make sense to use the 'var' prefix.

I don't think that follows.

> |  It's a tradeoff.  You may have to do a second search/replace while
> |  renaming, but you have to type an additional four characters all of
> |  the time.  "var(var-foo)" just seems... redundant.
>
> use(my-property) and val(x-property) doesn't feel redundant at all.

It's still using a function *and* a prefix, when you only need one.
That's not necessarily bad, but still.

> |  If we do get arbitrary property referencing, we'll want another
> |  function, like value() or prop() or something.
>
> This is seriously discutable. For example, a "native" property doesn't
> necesarrily exist and can be "invalid", too.
>
> Sample:
>
>    {
>        width: use(parent.flex-length, 100%);
>        // what if flex-length doesn't exist?;
>    }

No, native properties always exist, and are always valid.  If you
don't specify a property on an element, it gets converted to its
initial or inherited value at specified-value time.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:00:38 GMT

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