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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:23:07 +0000
To: Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
CC: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290342CD19@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I don't mind making your life difficult as much as I mind making authors' lives difficult. Maybe there is a benefit in making tools like yours change their syntax so that CSS can take over the syntactical pattern you've set no matter how weird and painful the transition is. If the case can be made, let's hear it.

In the meantime I don't see the point of confusing authors accustomed to 'this is Sass' with questions like 'mmm...is this Sass or CSS?'. That just seems unnecessary.

My $.02.

From: Chris Eppstein [mailto:chris@eppsteins.net]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:37 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Florian Rivoal; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css-variables] the new ED for CSS Variables

Hi,

Maybe it's not known that I am one of the two developers who are actively developing Sass. I understand that the more alike the syntax of CSS is to the syntax of Sass, then it creates more problems for our users which we will need to solve. You have my permission to make these headaches for us if the result is a better CSS -- I don't ever want to hear Sass being used as an excuse for making sub-optimal syntax decisions. We have the luxury of being able to provide updates, deprecate syntax and introduce new concepts at a much faster rate than the CSSWG. I encourage you to make our lives very hard over the next year or two. We love a challenge. We also very much want you to see Sass as a proving ground for new concepts so that stylesheet authors can provide feedback sooner in the specification process. Please let us know how we can help.

Cheers,
Chris Eppstein

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com<mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com>> wrote:

[Florian Rivoal:]
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:35:09 +0100, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net<mailto: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 Tuesday, 21 February 2012 04:23:44 GMT

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