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

RE: [css-variables] the new ED for CSS Variables

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:24:58 +0000
To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290342C067@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Florian Rivoal:]
> 
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:35:09 +0100, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > What's wrong with using $?
> >
> >  :root { $accentColor: green; }
> >   h1 { color: $accentColor; }
> 
> One obvious conflict many seem to be overlooking is the conflict with the
> use of $ in css preprocessors.
> 
> IMO, the proposal for variables is great, but it is quite different from
> what is currently found in preprocessors like sass. Sass also offers
> mixins.
> 
> In sass, both variables and mixins use $ as part of their syntax. If we
> start allowing $ in css, sass probably needs to be changed to use
> something else, and I don't think this is desirable.
> 
> Compatibility with sass as such isn't an important goal for the CSSWG, but
> it is a good example of why changes to the core grammar are not desirable,
> as they make break unsuspecting tools in the wild that rely (maybe
> unknowingly) on the core grammar staying what it is.
> 
Indeed; asking for this feature to use an already-familiar syntax is a request
that comes often in informal discussions but then server-side code needs to be
able to tell them apart. Most importantly, it should imo be easy for authors to
tell which is the standard client-side CSS one. 

Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 17:25:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT